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!
Table redistibutions.
I've mentioned this in answering a question in "that blog", but I'd like an official position on it.
When a player is taken from one table to fill a space at another table (to keep even player numbers), I was under the impression that it was the player in the big-blind that got moved. This doesn't happen on Sky - any reason?
When a player is taken from one table to fill a space at another table (to keep even player numbers), I was under the impression that it was the player in the big-blind that got moved. This doesn't happen on Sky - any reason?
Comments
I think someone told the programmer to take the big-stack (rather than the big blind) from the table. Thus the big stacks end up together. I have NEVER been at the sharp end of a tournie when there hasn't been 5 of the top 6 on 1 table (when down to 2 tables), and often 4 of the top 6 are on 1 table when we are at 30+ runners. Tikay assures me I'm wrong, but I can't see it.
Many times in mtt's I have commented in the chat box that the average stack is x therefore the table should be 6x, approximately, and on more occassion than not, a high percentage of the larger stacks are on the same table.
Only last night in a £2 bh mtt, I was on a table with 3 of the top stacks out of approx 40 runners!!!!
In B & M poker, it is always (or should always.....) be the Big Blind that is moved, & they are moved to the worst possible seat on their new Table.
Generally, in Online Poker it is done randomly, by, I assume (I don't know for sure) the RNG.
It is true to say that doing it this way, it sometimes disadvantages the moved player. But it would be equally fair to say that it just as often advantages the moved player. Poker players notice when it disadvantages them, & fail to notice when they get a "good" move.
On balance, it confers no real advantage either way in the longer term. Poker, like life, is not always fair - we don't like it when a really good player is to our immediate left, & our mate, on the next Table, has a table full of not so good players. That's not fair, either, but it's how poker works, really.
The same debate has raged for years in B & M poker, but really, I don't know why, we just need to ride with the punches, & remember that it cuts both ways, it just as often favours us as it does not.
Did you not see the Semi-Final of the SPT at Leeds last week, which was a LIVE Tourney?
All the big stacks were on 1 table, & that is often the case. "Many times" in fact.
There is nothing sinister about it, nothing at all. Why would there be? I mean, really, why would there be? Why is it in anyone's interest to mess with random distribution? The motive is what, exactly?
People complain about this (why? - I WANT the big stacks on my table ffs!), so presumably, they prefer to be on the Table full of shorties. I've yet to see someone complain about that being on a table full of shorties, though.......
You seem to be fixated about this - don't be, it makes no sense, think motive.
It is not a flaw in the software.
"Selective memory" plays some wonderful tricks on poker players.
How exactly do you explain what happened at Leeds last SAturday, in the Semi-Final of the SPT, & it happens frequently, everywhere, Live & Online.
Anf why, as a mstter of interest, do you consider it a bad thi8ng.
I'll bet you all the tea in China that ANY (long-term) winning MTT player WANTS to be on the Table with the Big Stacks, all day & all night. How else do they get chips, & become winning players?
Guys, it's a self-perpetuating & myth & a self-fulfilling prophecy, all this "the big stacks are always on one table, it's unfair".
They are not, & it is not.
Much as it's good to be with the big-stacks, there are occasions early in tournaments, when it's great to be the chip bully. I accept that when I triple up and knock 2 players out, my table is likely to split, and so i might find myself on a table where someone else has just been knocked out (hence another big stack).
As you say, it's all perception, BUT shift the high blind when nicking 1 player from the table, and I think the conspiracy theorists (who are normally content) will be appeased.
"seem" is the operative word.
I have no idea how the software is programmed, & I don't think, being logical, I need to. It's equally illogical to suggest it is a BAD thing to be on the "big stacks" Table, & players in their thousand repreat that mantra. That does not make it any more logical, or even correct.
I didnt say its a negative just a mere observation i have made, it has its pros and cons like everything can win more chips so you have better chance of winning & also changes the whole dynamics
all i have asked if there is a specific rule re: moving people, obviously it evens tables out but is there anything else? Tikay i respect you alot but surely you cant answer this question? one would assume everything is hunky dory
C'Mon sky.
Not going to get involved in this debate too much but seriously theres a time and thats not one.
I love Sky Poker, Tikay, but you can't defend this (I've just watched a tournament to see, and it's true).