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.
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.
Comments
the only way to stop that is stars' approach by warning people then temp banning them for doing it but sky won't do that so that issue will never go away.
But the thread is still interesting.
One site that I play a fair bit of hilo cash on claims that the points awarded on a hand are adjusted accorded to the "experience" of the opponent. No real idea of how this works, but I would guess it would have to depend on points already earned by the other players involved in the hand.
So it would encourage recreational players to take a shot at the regs and perhaps be an incentive for a reg to play another reg if he felt he had a small edge.
But it would obviously lessen the points earned when you are lucky enough to be facing a less experienced opponent.
There has been mentioned about starting tables. Most regs dont put any effort into starting tables every time I am on I try to get tables going. I have done this for years. I put more effort in than most regs. It usually me, sam or remimartin. One of us sits the other sits out when table starts to fill we start playing. (I dont mix hu and 6 max) This has worked for years vast majority of 200nl tables are started this way cos majority cant be bothered. I dont expect any thanks for it but criticism come on.
I think we should expand the debate a little now, frankly it's getting far too narrow and turning into a back and forth between two people. This is a massively important debate for everyone on Sky Poker regarding a fundamental change.
My opinion is still the same, I would like the change and it's the best business decision for the site to make that change. It's not the best decision for all of the regs in the short term but it is the best way to ensure liquidity in the long term, which is far more important in my opinion.
FWIW, my opinion was originally that I'd never seen any complaints about the current C4P system on here (maybe I wasn't looking hard enough?), so it didn't need changing. Having read posts from some of the higher stakes regs on here though, I'm much more in favour of a system which would give more C4P to the players who contribute most to the pot.
tl;dr version - Changed my mind.
For smiplicity lets assume the table has 5 players and gives out 500 points per hour. There is one recreational player, 2 tight regs and 2 loose regs.
Current system each player gets 100 points. Sky pay out each reg 5.6p *100 for this hours play. That is £22.40 in total paid out for the table. The recreational player gets nothing as they dont play enough to earn c4p.
New system. Still 500 points paid out. Tight regs get 50 points, loose regs get 75 points. Recreationsal player gets 250 points. Sky pays out to tight regs 50 points at 3.4p (monthly total gone down now) £1.70. Loose regs get 75 points at 4.4p £3.30. Recreational player gets nothing as doesnt play enough to get c4p. So sky have paid out a total of £10 for the hours play.
So as you see, the recreational player is unaffected, both types of regs are worse off and sky are giving less than half per table. However, sky may be worse off as regs will play less. The only upside to this is the tables may become softer and win rates may go up.
I should have given this illustration at first I just assumed people would be able to see this.
most rec. players probbly play 10-20% more hands than they 'should'
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points: So until they state how the C4P would be allocated isn't it impossible to judge whether it's better or worse?
A simple example using your above figures, if there is a weighting of 2.24x given to C4P payout then the total paid out would be £22.40 as before.
Using AJS example (if it is correct) if a 100/200nl reg makes 30k points @ priority +3 then he gets 5.6p per point. A random who plays 4x a month would norm get 100 x 4 points, using the example he now gets 1000 points only valued at 1p each.
At the min I am playing nl10 and with the rake @7.5% i would prob be better of under the new system.
Starting new table, i don't mind starting tables. At nl10 if i log on at 10am i norm see 2/3 tables running so will open a few and they fill real quick, norm have 6/7 running within 30 mins. I would like to be rewarded for this in some way. 2x points HU, 1.5x points 3 handed? will this make the 3rd reg sit?
Once i have 6 open i don't like opening any more as i don't like playing HU and 6 ring at the same time, so i sort of understand players who play 12 tables but don't want to play HU to get more games running.
That is true but I still don't think it's a particularly valid point. I know this will probably make me slightly worse off (and I basically ignore my C4P anyway as it's so little) but I've definitely been swayed by some of the clearly well thought out responses on here, and ultimately anything that improves the site/brings more traffic and 'fresh blood' to the site HAS to be a good thing and is clearly far more important than regs (loose or tight) getting C4P.
fair ?
u pay x amount of rake to get x amount of points. this would be a fairer system
emample
tourney u pay £11 entry £1 is the rake u get 10 points 4 this i think. cash should be the same u pay a total £1 rake get 10 points. but ive played hu cash table say we both start with £4 no reloads and i stack him/her after 10-20mins and cause of the rake taking from pots throughout the session i end up with say £6. so £2 taken in rake and u only receive 2-3 points max. thats y i think it would be fairer if i was like above any 1 else agree
i like the system as it is, this seems a bit too strange if your trying to work out how much u need to play for priority club etc
i wont be able to give my opinion untill iev seen both though, dont think anyone can. could trial it for a month or two?
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
- At the moment, for example, they'd get 10points each (60points in total)
- In the alternative way (forgetting the blinds to keep it simpler!) in a £40 pot
- Players 1 & 2 contribute zero = get no points
- Player 3 contributed £4 = gets 6 points
- Player 4 contributes £8 = gets 12 points
- Players 5 & 6 contribute £14 each and get 21 points each
Those who contribute more, get more (and vice versa)
What do people think about this?
Lets use player 5 and 6 as example.
Player 5 is a pro who makes Priority +3 every month his/her 21 points are worth 5.6p per point.
Player 6 is Joe he plays 4/5 times a month, his 21 points are only worth 1p each.
Although sky have stated it is not their intention to reduce the amount they pay out, I think it will as a rec playing a few times a month will get more points that are worth less money and a pro player will get less points coz Joe is getting them.
I would love to try and do the maths for this and see who will and wont be better off. With the current system as it is i don't think it is possible to work out accurately how much rake a cash player pays each month.
Anyone wanna have a go at the maths? you will need to do a few examples of a high VPIP and low VPIP over 100k hands. Show what they get under the current sysem and what they will get under the new system with £1 paid = 10 points. Go on you brave person you.