Table redistibutions.

YOUNG_GUN

Tikay i have tweeted you regarding something else when you get a chance, dont worry its not a moan

Regards
john

The_Don90

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions.:

Don, it's clear Sky ave made a serious programming error here. If they are moving the player due to be on the button, it's a disgrace, and one that adversely affects the small stacks (as you say - pay 2 blinds, then lose the option to try and make them back - move to another table, and possibly straight into the BB again). I love Sky Poker, Tikay, but you can't defend this (I've just watched a tournament to see, and it's true).
Posted by Eyeman

i fully agree graham. I base my whole mid-late part of a tourny of stealing one set of blinds on average per circle. This means my stack wont go up or down until i find a spot to either double or go broke. By moving me means i need to steal 2 sets of blinds to just break even before i even worry about my double.

Then again i know everyone can be at the same disadvatage but if im short aproching FT bubble or the bubble(in a tournament ive satelitted thorugh) it could destory my stack and there for effects the whole dynamics of the game for not just me but all others on the table im moving to which in turn effects the rest of the game.

I dont think i can complain however, as i do teand to either pic up a vast number or chips or go broke early in my attempt to win, and i know youve admited your similar. However its not just 2 players we're talking about here, i think the vast majority of online sky players dont always go for the win the way me and you would. A number of them set targets like pass the bubble, then ladder from there and only think about winning on FT. These are the players who will be the biggest hit. And lets face it if they get annoyed and dont play then theirs no value in the players like us playing tournaments as that 90% of a field gone.

This is just my opinion and i could be way off the mark.

unknown_username

The RNG has nothing to do with table re-balancing. That is the job of any sub-routines built into the overall programme. These are same family of sub-routines that handle the distribution of the cards AFTER the RNG has produced a randomised sequence of cards.

Next time you are moved take a look at the old table you were on. Has your place been filled by another player? If so why were you moved? It's happened to me and I don't understand it at all.

Eyeman

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions.:

The RNG has nothing to do with table re-balancing. That is the job of any sub-routines built into the overall programme. These are same family of sub-routines that handle the distribution of the cards AFTER the RNG has produced a randomised sequence of cards. Next time you are moved take a look at the old table you were on. Has your place been filled by another player? If so why were you moved? It's happened to me and I don't understand it at all.
Posted by elsadog

This coul simply be a number of exits at a similar time. You move to balance, within a minute 4 more players go, and your old seat is filled.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions.:

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions. : This coul simply be a number of exits at a similar time. You move to balance, within a minute 4 more players go, and your old seat is filled.
Posted by Eyeman

Yes I've played long enough to have worked that one out. I mean immediately you are moved.

Eyeman

You can't see the table the instant you are moved.

DOHHHHHHH

You are programmed to move mid hand, so if you're on the button, as utg+1 is folding, it may suddenly be decided that you are to move at the end of the hand.

You still have to sit there until the hand is over, which can be up to a minute.

During that minute, things might happen elsewhere so that the table you left, needs to be re-balanced to 6 handed again. 

Theres a delay between when it's decided you will move, and when you actually do move.

Which explains why a seat could be vacated and then immdiately re-filled.

sweetylady

if your table loses a player at the point when the remaining players divide equally between 6, that is you lose  67th place, 73rd place, 91st place etc your table will always be broken up and fill the empty seats on other tables.

sometimes in this instance you will get moved to the big blind (because it is the only spare seat) and have to pay it but this is just bad luck and unavoidable. if the empty seat you get moved to should be the small blind you don't pay it (but you don't get any cards either and have to  'wait')

during a tournament if one of the tables gets down to 4 or 3 handed when there are tables that are 6 or 5 handed a player needs to be moved to balance the tables. this will be the person who is about to be the dealer button on the table whose current hand finishes the soonest.

in these instances the player moved has a choice of seats and will always be moved to the seat closest to the dealer button.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions.:

Tikay i have tweeted you regarding something else when you get a chance, dont worry its not a moan Regards john
Posted by YOUNG_GUN

I have spent all of today clearing a backlog of PM's, FB Messages, Twitter DM's, & e-Mails, John, most of which were variations of "why does Sky Poker fix it so that the Big Stack/Short Stack/bloke with big feet always wins?" sort of thing, & it takes me forever to reply to Twitter DM's, so I'll reply here, to save time.

Q1

Neil Channing

Julian Thew

Nik Persaud

Redmond Lee

Ian Fraser

Carlo Citrone

Sam Razavi

Wayne Rideout 

Paul Jackson

Q2

I don't know, but subject to further Edit, within the next 2 to 3 weeks, I would hope. There will be 6 x 2 hour episodes.

More news soon. 

YOUNG_GUN

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions.:

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions. : I have spent all of today clearing a backlog of PM's, FB Messages, Twitter DM's, & e-Mails, John, most of which were variations of "why does Sky Poker fix it so that the Big Stack/Short Stack/bloke with big feet always wins?" sort of thing, & it takes me forever to reply to Twitter DM's, so I'll reply here, to save time. Q1 Neil Channing Julian Thew Nik Persaud Redmond Lee Ian Fraser Carlo Citrone Sam Razavi Wayne Rideout  Paul Jackson Q2 I don't know, but subject to further Edit, within the next 2 to 3 weeks, I would hope. There will be 6 x 2 hour episodes. More news soon.  
Posted by Tikay10

Wow great line up, i cant wait cheers ears!

DAVEYZZ

i got moved after the first hand of the mini deepstack last night!!!!!

(ok i got moved to the rail.......ak v ak ....)

kaymac

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions.:

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions. : "many times", yes, but by design (or by design fault), no. 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....... 
Posted by Tikay10

Tikay

My contribution to this post was not a complaint, merely an observation.

My query would be why would the average stack be shown if the table average is not comparable to it????

loonytoons

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions.:

In Response to Re: Table redistibutions. : Graham, a few random examples proves nothing, & you know it. Your sample size needs to be 6 or 7 figures, 100,000+ examples, not a handful. You seem to be fixated about this - don't be, it makes no sense, think motive.
Posted by Tikay10

To be fair this would be true when talking about 'hands' and 'cards dealt' but with tourney play 'moves' the figure could be immensely less, as the number of 'moves' late on in a tourney, are insignificant to the amount of 'hands dealt' If a players takes a sample size of say 7 days tournament games which involve 50+ players, and this sort of thing happens say 80% of the time, then its fair to assume it is more likely to occur in the long run as well. One more point, whenever there is an argument, someone always says that the sample size should be in the hundreds of thousands to be meaningful, but how can anybody do this? its like me saying i bet you a million quid im right, who's gonna bet knowing me and you wont pay the million if we lost lol. I personally don't care when im moved, it evens itself out in the long run for all of us, unlucky today, lucky tomorrow, that's my philosophy!

Eyeman

However, where you are moved FROM will bother you. I'd be very surprised if this basic programming error wasn't sorted as a result of this thread. No-one can defend moving the player from the button.

Poker_Fail

Sooooo, this gonna happen ?