Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points

pomfrittes

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

So in a purely hypothetical and simple example, with nice round numbers to make it easier- lets say in a hand six people are dealt in: - 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.
Posted by freechips1

    Good post Free.

   I am not sure how Sky will implement this if they do decide to changeover but there will be a grey area imo between points and actual cash paid out.

   If we use your example it appears true that the actual cash amount paid out will decrease even though the points awarded will remain static.However, what will happen as your example illustrates, is that the more active a player is the more points he will earn so players who contribute more in rake will receive more in rakeback which is the fairest system.

   With regards to Joe, our recreational player, i feel that he will have a bigger incentive to play more regularly if he realises that his rakeback rate per C4P increases as he hits each threshold.

   I also agree that players starting new tables should be rewarded in some way and probably the suggestions of 2x HU and 1.5X for 3 handed is about right.

ps. Too long since i did any serious maths so i will pass on the comparison over 100k hands tx.

freechips1

Lets give it a go.......(the flaw is not being able to work out % of what hands are raked so we will assume all hands are raked)

10nl 50k hands, current system.

You get 3 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 7500 points

10nl 50k hands, New system (assuming 10 points = £1 paid in rake)

Player (Y) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands.
With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand.
7.5p per hand over 10k hands = £750 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 7500 points. ITS THE SAME.

Player (Z) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands.
With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand.
7.5p per hand over 15k hands = £1125 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 11,250 points.

100nl 50k hands, current system

You get 18 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 45,000 points

100nl 50k hands, new system

Player (A) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands.
With average pot @£10 and rake @5% (£0.50p raked per hand) he pays £0.25p per hand.
25p per hand over 10k hands = £2500 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 25,000 points.  20k less points.

Player (B) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands.
With average pot @£10 and rake @5%.
0.25p per hand over 15k hands = £3750 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 37,500 points.

Player (C) plays 40% of hands so he plays 20k hands.
With average pot @£10 and rake @5%.
0.25p per hand over 20k hands = £5000 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 50,000 points.

silver8ack

keep it this is no good to low stack players at all when are we going to get reward for being loyal customers to sky ?

Doooobs

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

keep it this is no good to low stack players at all when are we going to get reward for being loyal customers to sky ?
Posted by silver8ack

So the fella sat with the minimum at my table ruining the game playing pushbot poker, gets the same points as the rest of us?

I don't care what you change it to, it has to be changed before the rest of us cotton on!

 

beaneh

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

(a)Pokerstars has changed to a weighted rake system and rightly so; Sky poker is a different story, its hasnt got a big enough player base and the software isnt quite good enough to allow rakeback pros to kill the games. 

(b)I've only been here a day 

(c)i'll get straight to the point, sky poker is better off keeping the rake system the way they have it now because it gives everyone a fair share regardless of playing style, 

(d)to change the system will discourage alot of your player base as they will have to change their playing style in order to get the same as everyone else, poker is based alot on personality, i know some people that wouldnt raise on the button with J9s even if you held a gun to their head so saying punish the nits is the wrong attitude to take with a site this small. 

(e)It should remain the same until the site grows to at least 50k people online at peak times.

Posted by aba10

I have cropped and labelled lines in your post to respond to as the quote feature here is so icky and adding coloured text etc can be very hard, but I want to respond to each of the things you have said, so that said...

(a) PS did not change to the weighted system exclusively because of the grinders, the setup of their VIP system means that the effects that it would have on there and on sky are different. It does however mean (and FC1 correctly pointed this out) that there will be no difference in the number of 'points' awarded, but because they will go to different people on differing vip (or priority levels w/e you wanna call it) there will be a difference in the total monetary value of what is given out. The point being that for long term ecosystem liquidity it is best for more to being going back to recreational players, however they play the least and get the least bonus multiplication so though they will now get more rakeback the amount more they get will be less than the amount the higher volume players will be losing out on (therefore obv the poker site wins).

Considering point (b) I'm not sure how you can quite so confidently discuss the long term liquidity of the sky games. If you were here to grind in January then you would have seen exactly what you mention, rakeback hunters of bottoms who just spent their days folding and not putting money in the pot, they are not good for the games and are the only people who benefit from dealt distribution.

(c) The main point to stress would be IMO that people are completely incorrect in accepting the sites taking such a large percentage of the pot as rake. Relative to the fact that it is online, on servers which don't need HR breaks or to be off ill or to be paid etc etc The margins on online poker compared to live poker where oftentimes the MTT rakes are similar is a farce. I'm not in anyway saying there are no overheads, because I expect the servers to stay up and running and things to work and people to be there during business hours to respond to issues etc but the rake levels have always been too high, whilst the games in the past have been soft enough that even marginal winners were not affected by it nowadays with decreasing win rates that inclusion in your expected value calculation where you * the figure by 95 really has an effect. With the huge volumes of hands that are played online the amount of max rake should be reduced, and again I think that it should be reduced more at the lower levels to benefit the recreational players. Take a 5p 10p game, and a £1 £2 game, both games expect a fair game to be provided by the service provider, yet those in the 1/2 game are playing for higher stakes and have more vested interest in the game being fair so I would have nothing against the rake paid being higher at 1/2 relative to at 5p/10p.

You say that it should be kept the way it is because that is 'fairer', that's not the right word to use. The whole point is that it is fairer that someone who constantly plays pots and pays into the pot which pays the rake should get more rakeback than someone who just sits there constantly clicking the left button. What next just have a game of 6 people all with auto fold on, as long as they sit there for 10 hours a day and fold every hand they can get paid some nice rakeback? Playing style is completely personal choice, the best players do not have a certain playing style and adjust to the games they are playing which is why the best players will always win but thinking that this is being implemented to specifically punish a swathe of players is incorrect, it just so happens that there is a large portion of players who are making use of the fact that the system is so unfairly set up as it is. 

(d) Sky isn't here to pander to certain type of players. Sky is providing electronic tables on which people can play a card game on which they wager real money relative to the outcomes. The game must be fair, for that they charge a fee, the rake. Sky don't just charge some people the rake and not others, each users identity and stakes played and win/loss is irrelevant. For sky to be viable as a business the money in must be greater than or equal to the money out, obviously with sky being a biggie corporation they want the old profits and w/e that is business (there would be arguments for SP to be a loss leader if it brought more money into their other gambling ventures or people into sky packages etc but forget those scenarios). Considering that to the people most likely making the actual decisions above SP the idea of it not making money would mean that it shouldn't exist. so we cant just be hopeful and say no rake please we just want to play without paying for the service provided. Similarly if sky were only worried about the bottom line (lol I said bottom) of today then why not just up the rake or reduce the rakeback paid out etc, these would have the effect of reducing the longevity of the site. The old sheep shearing adage is very applicable here, do they want to have some nice roast lamb right now or months and months of nice wooly clothes? Obviously they want the revenue stream to continue and for that revenue stream to be as high as it can be whilst not affecting the longevity. Just because you know some guy who won't raise the button with top set what does that matter, you seem to think that sky are PUNISHING people when the whole point of rakeback is that it is a 'bonus' and sky are changing the methodology by which they distribute it in a way that BENEFITS a certain pool of players more than it did previously, this is good because it is that pool of players that are the ones that keep the games running.

(e) I hope I haven't wasted my time replying to you considering that quote (e) is just so farcical. From a site that does well to have 2k people online at any one time speculating that we'll just make it fairer when we manage to 25x our player base is pretty comical.

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

Personally im not a fan change a lot of the table dynamics especially when it gets to say 11PM last day of month, althought i guess it brings all the 24 tabling nits out of there closets. 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?

Posted by bolly580

Mr Bolly, you do realise that at a 6 man table, if there were no blinds there would be no reason to play, with antes posted by each player at the start of the hand combined with the blinds there is now an incentive in the pot to play for, every pot that is played post flop currently is raked and therefore a % of the pot disappears down a black hole, the amount is relative to the size of the pot up to a maximum amount. So we have factors giving us a reason to play and some that do the opposite, this is the 'table dynamics' as you reference. The 11pm end of the month stuff you reference has nothing to do with the structure of the game but everything to do with the structure of the rakeback scheme. I could make a complaint based on the fact that I like all my sessions to revolve around playing at 23:57 to 12:04 and I only play on the last day of a month, yet because you have to sit out to have the points come into your account for the month in which the session technically ends, all my games are broken at the times when I like to play..........

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

Lets give it a go.......(the flaw is not being able to work out % of what hands are raked so we will assume all hands are raked) 10nl 50k hands, current system. You get 3 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 7500 points 10nl 50k hands, New system (assuming 10 points = £1 paid in rake) Player (Y) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands. With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand. 7.5p per hand over 10k hands = £750 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 7500 points. ITS THE SAME. Player (Z) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands. With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand. 7.5p per hand over 15k hands = £1125 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 11,250 points. 100nl 50k hands, current system You get 18 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 45,000 points 100nl 50k hands, new system Player (A) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5% (£0.50p raked per hand) he pays £0.25p per hand. 25p per hand over 10k hands = £2500 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 25,000 points.  20k less points. Player (B) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5%. 0.25p per hand over 15k hands = £3750 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 37,500 points. Player (C) plays 40% of hands so he plays 20k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5%. 0.25p per hand over 20k hands = £5000 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 50,000 points.

Posted by freechips1

FC1 you seem to be focusing completely on monetary values, first you should (as you have done) just consider the amount of points earnt, how those points are translated into a monetary value should then be looked at, but it is this aspect of it that affects the relative amounts of money paid out. There is no point sky making sure to pay out the same amount this month as they did last month when they are paying it out to the wrong people (and by wrong I mean to people who deserve it the least [though deserve is obviously a very objective word and probably not the right one to use but w/e this post is getting stupidly long as it is]; the right people to pay it out to are those that increase the longevity of the games, remembering that it is the games running that pay rake to pay skys' bills. 

Recently I saw a promotion where HU games had a rake reduction. This equates to the players who are playing HU paying less rake each hand, but as HU is a very rake intensive game (because with only two people so many more flops are seen and much wider hand ranges used) sky are still quite literally 'raking' it in from a HU table. If you don't realise this, watch a HU match with two people with 100bb neither of whom reload, and then see how much money is in play after a certain time period. You will be shocked/disgusted imo. The rake on some sites for HU can be so bad that it forcibly makes you change your play style and increase your variance ie by trying to be exceptionally aggressive preflop, because preflop you are not raked and get 100% of the pot whereas post flop you get 95% of any pots you win. This forces the heads up match into a preflop bluff range game and variance war. 

In Response to Re: Half-Price Rake on Heads-Up Tables!:

It's a brilliant promotion for the HU regs at £1/£2 and above, but I can count the number of players that I've seen playing HU on this site at those levels on my fingers, so what about the other 99.9% of Sky Poker players? Only lowering the rake at £1/£2 and above really defeats the point of the promotion to a certain extent IMO. I think it'd be a much better promotion if it covered every level of HU cash - you've said in the OP "If you haven't tried heads-up, it's a good time to play", so you're aiming this promotion at people who have never played HU before, as well as the handful of HU regs. Anyone who hasn't played HU before will know they'd be setting fire to money playing at £1/£2, and for that reason, probably wouldn't care how much rake there is because they're not going to play at that level anyway, so if you want people to try HU cash, it'd make sense to apply the same promotion to lower levels as well. Just my £0.02 (:

Posted by EvilPingu

Well said, considering also the disgusting HU etiquette, lobby skills, and general ineptitude of the mass of gift seekers who wait on the sky hu lobby all day refusing to play people who can tie their shoes this is utterly the wrong way to design a promotion.

Quick thoughts on promotion structure ideas:

Rake free for the first xyz hands [pros: more games start  - cons: the games only last as long as the promotion for rake free lasts]

Rake free over special weekends or time periods [pros: more games start, games don't break when the free rake setup stops, people get into HU and wish to play it more even when there are no promotions running - cons: sky are outlaying money to have xyz headsup games running (lol it doesn't take up much server power) sky don't make a sick winrate off the HU games (both these cons are negative to sky but not to the players, these are 'promotions/bonuses' which would actually have an effect rather than just no rake at 1/2+ which literally targets no one as those games hardly ever run.]

Rake free up to a certain blind limit (the higher stakes someone is rolled to play for the less of an effect a small reduction in rake is going to have, also remember that the total amount of rake paid is capped so therefore once you get to silly stakes the rake is actually completely immaterial). Take for example a 1p2p headsup game with (ima make up the numbers here just for examples sake I can't be bothered to look anything up) with a 5% rake up to max £1 obv that game will run 3 hands and there will be no money left on the table, yet the same rake structure even with a higher cap eg 5trillion/38 gajillion blinds with a 5% £10 cap. If you can afford to sit in for a 38 gajillion big blind game then you don't have worries that include where did that £10 go, however the £1 cap at the 1/2p game is a % of the players bankrolls! It should all be relative, and as I referenced at the start those playing £5/10 or w/e should be paying alot more relative to someone playing ridiculously low stakes. The low stakes should be an avenue into the higher stakes for players, so starting a promotion at 1/2+ and above is joke dumb.  [pros- the lower stakes would surge in popularity for HU (remember this discussion is related to just the HU games there are all sorts of similar issues in the 6 max and ring games and they require even more finesse to provide solutions better to everyone as there are more people at dem tables), more people would start seeing HU as a viable regular format of poker (which at the higher stakes regularly getting a game is exceptionally hard because the edges have reduced so much with skill levels increasing and therefore people don't get such easy wins and they are reticent to play as much since the swongs headsup can be so severe) - cons: sky don't get rake from the tiny hu games etc]

As you can see in all instances there are some people who benefit some people who lose out, if sky lose out over a certain threshold then it is not viable economically for them to continue to offer the service. Some people seem to think that they deserve sky paying them x a month because they have got used to that, and all they care about is themselves so why not spew forth selfish and unhelpful opinions. 

In Response to Re: Half-Price Rake on Heads-Up Tables!:

well, i think it's great and very much appreciated given how high hu rake is on Sky, so thank you but i also agree if this was stretched to lower limits to increase hu popularity i can't see how that's a bad thing as heads up is by far the most fun form of no limit poker as it's much more action packed than 6max+

Posted by zing

As you can see a regular hu 'sitter' (he hunts dem bums pretty hard but at least he occasionally gives action to players who i'm sure he considers are better than him/ he does actually sit in 6 max games and doesn't have such ridic disgusting etiquette deficiencies (this should be taken as compliment zinagthon)) likes the idea of 1/2+ rake being reduced but in all likelihood it probably didn't give him a sudden surge of people sitting with him hu (as you can see he also references just how ridic high (and it is ridic) sky hu rake is). This player has accepted that the promotion benefits him whilst also acknowledging that he isn't the type of player sky should be aiming a bonus at.  Sky should make sure to listen to players who give good/targeted/honest and unselfish feedback imo.

That's a quick version of my thoughts. :-) Sorry for the ridic length I can't help it.

For those whose eyes are hurting and they want to look at something and feel better -

http://tinyurl.com/shutupbeanehfewl

GREGHOGG

posting some cute kittens doesnt hide that giant wall of text beaney!

good try tho

beaneh

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

posting some cute kittens doesnt hide that giant wall of text beaney! good try tho
Posted by GREGHOGG

I'd post bewbs but i'd get in trouble.

And what is it, close to zero chance that you read it all?

oynutter

I think players should be awarded 5000 poker points for going salmon fishing instead of sitting on their cheeky bits playing poker!

Machka

Oh I really hope you typed that into a text editor and then cut and pasted it here.

I would imagine if a popup had blocked you posting that it would have been like a tonne of TNT going off.

Would have been fun to see on twitter though.

GREGHOGG

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : I'd post bewbs but i'd get in trouble. And what is it, close to zero chance that you read it all?
Posted by beaneh

jeez ur are good at readling people innit.. no wonders u is good at the pokerz!

fear not! my secretary Dohhhhhh is about to read it all and translate accordingly

P.S I like cute kittens

beaneh

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

Oh I really hope you typed that into a text editor and then cut and pasted it here. I would imagine if a popup had blocked you posting that it would have been like a tonne of TNT going off. Would have been fun to see on twitter though.

Posted by Machka

You sir are a horrible person. You know full well that on more than one occasion this PLUCKING software (see what I did there I referenced the name of the software to describe it ) messes you about and logs you out when you spend a few mins logged in and doing nothing, then when you click post it goes LOL YOU'RE NOT LOGGED IN DELETEAMENTS

and I run around going OMG DID THAT REALLY JUST HAPPEN I HATE LIFE

So nowadays once the post starts getting stupid long notepad has to be used, I went to spell check it but having already corrected quite a few in the posts I quoted I just gave up and hoped that I didn't misspell too many things myself. But tbf in a post that long I think I should be given quite a lot of leeway!

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : jeez ur are good at readling people innit.. no wonders u is good at the pokerz! fear not! my secretary Dohhhhhh is about to read it all and translate accordingly P.S I like cute kittens

Posted by GREGHOGG

I has dem reads bruv, that's how I took you out of SPT LUTON. MWAHAQHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAAAAAAAAA

Who the hell don't like kittens imo?

http://freeimagesarchive.com/data/media/21/9_kittens.jpg

http://www.dailypets.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/somali1.jpg

http://stephenflavahan.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/kitten.jpg

http://images.kittenads.co.uk/kitten-cup.jpg

http://www.dailypets.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/janet-bengal500.jpg

http://www.innocentenglish.com/cute-animals/cute-baby-kittens-puppies-img/cute-kittens-pic51.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/isyoujellymet

DOHHHHHHH

Read it all thoroughly, and come to the conclusion that Pu see's  >  Bewbs. 

beaneh

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

Read it all thoroughly, and come to the conclusion that Pu see's   />  Bewbs. 
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

so you saw the bit in the middle that just repeats

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnitdohisasillybillyinnit

dohisasillybillyinnit

it's the only way my posts are ever so long, most of it is utter drivel i've copy pasted from elsewhere on the net

AcidMan27

Can those of us that read beanehs post get an extra 1000C4P please ?

zing

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

As you can see a regular hu 'sitter' (he hunts dem bums pretty hard but at least he occasionally gives action to players who i'm sure he considers are better than him/ he does actually sit in 6 max games and doesn't have such ridic disgusting etiquette deficiencies (this should be taken as compliment zinagthon)) likes the idea of 1/2+ rake being reduced but in all likelihood it probably didn't give him a sudden surge of people sitting with him hu (as you can see he also references just how ridic high (and it is ridic) sky hu rake is). This player has accepted that the promotion benefits him whilst also acknowledging that he isn't the type of player sky should be aiming a bonus at.
Posted by beaneh

i only give action occasionally because it's simply not worth it logically, same goes with starting tables, you have to worry more about the rake you're losing over the opponent you're playing such is the obscenity. (i had an example before this weekend where i played around 150 hands at 2/4 and was raked around 100£ and i probs got like 50 c4p for that lol)

hopefully they do introduce a scheme to help table starters and in turn correct the hu rake issue in general so i don't need a 10bb/100 edge on someone to profitably play them, inevitably leading to more games running because people feel they can actually win some monies.

props for writing a massive essay which i only kinda read cause i saw my name and it's late, the problem is not enough people speak up on sky about the major issues so things never get changed for the better and general health of the games.

now you just gotta get them to listen.

Poker_Fail

Half-Price Rake on Heads-Up Tables!: As you can see a regular hu 'sitter' (he hunts dem bums pretty hard but at least he occasionally gives action to players who i'm sure he considers are better than him/ he does actually sit in 6 max games and doesn't have such ridic disgusting etiquette deficiencies (this should be taken as compliment zinagthon)) likes the idea of 1/2+ rake being reduced but in all likelihood it probably didn't give him a sudden surge of people sitting with him hu (as you can see he also references just how ridic high (and it is ridic) sky hu rake is). This player has accepted that the promotion benefits him whilst also acknowledging that he isn't the type of player sky should be aiming a bonus at.  Sky should make sure to listen to players who give good/targeted/honest and unselfish feedback imo. That's a quick version of my thoughts. :-) Sorry for the ridic length I can't help it. For those whose eyes are hurting and they want to look at something and feel better - http://tinyurl.com/shutupbeanehfewl
Posted by beaneh

You are my Sky forum hero so stfu and read

You only play 6max yeh? You've mentioned the redic rake and low edges HU, so if you were a HU player would you not have quite a few people you'd avoid as it's simply -ev to play them??

beaneh

Machka IT RUDDY HAPPENED AGAIN lol

http://i43.tinypic.com/hx6c77.jpg

And some of the talk about stuff hasn't fully affected Sky. Still they are things to be considered because they will eventually happen here.

Hope this post makes sense gonna click submit before the message  comes up again!

TommyD

Lovely post Beaneh.  No idea why I read it all as I agreed with you in the first place but I guess I have emotional issues.

If weighted contribution does come in, I'd love to see another rake race.

sikas

there is a wider argument here, but fwiw...

i'm with AJS on this one

the argument on here seems to be about being 'fairer' and sky increasing 'liquidity'

right so ok it is a fairer system no denying it

but regs ARE going to be worse off, say NL50 for example where i frequent, the player pool is made up of say 20 Regs and 100 recreational players (on a weekly basis - i.e. recreational may only play once a week) now whats gonna happen is regs' rakeback is gonna decrease by 20% to boost each of the recreational players rakeback/C4P by 4-5%, but it IS the regs that generate rake, a 'reg' is much more efficient at turning a £100 'deposit' into as much rake as possible as they play over and over again (even tho they're prob accumulating at the time), a reg will rake £100 and make £150, fish on the other hand will rake £10 and lose £100, leave then maybe come back next month. Reg's deposit to rake conversion ratio is much better, and sky's income is really only thru rake.

and as for a 'liquidity', or bettering/increasing it

theres 2 types on players, Type 'A' the 'Reg' and Type 'B' the recreational player/fish, and each have different needs, and for good 'liquidity' - a poker site business that is profitable/growing u need plenty of regs and a steady supply of recreational players

Type 'A' is the reg, and his needs are fairly basic

*steady supply of Type 'B' players

*motivational bonuses (to drive rake generation) - such as C4P, the greater the incentive the more u are likely to play

Type 'B' is the fish, and they need

*Value for money

*An enjoyable poker experience

so lets break it down....

Value for Money: this is why bounty hunters/timed tournaments are so popular with recreational players, its very easy to make some sort of return on ur initial outlay whilst they enjoy their hobby - 

to increase value for money for recreational players:

* a better whay to do it would b to decrease the rake at the micros

* educate the recreational player pool on BRM so that they get more play from the their £100 at NL10 than lol-playing NL100 for 30 mins (this is probs why all sky poker sites have online schools, the educate their market because ultimately better players play more, and generate more rake)

*insert other suggestions here i cant think of

An enjoyable poker experience - the worlds biggest poker room isnt 'stars, its 'zynga' poker (lol), why? cos its actually fun, theres trophies for getting royal flushes n sh**, u can use ur points/money to buy cigars+virtual booze lol, sounds bonkers to see but the fish fookin love it, sky are better off implementing some sort of 'Video Game' dynamic to sky to increase the supply and enjoyment of recreational players 

and as for attracting new markets of recreational players the number 1 deterrent for online poker as far as a recreational player or even non-player/casual observer is concerned to widely believed conspiracy that online poker is rigg*d, so suppose thatd what u should combat  -Video poker tables mite b a good idea

now the argument that WRC (weight contributed rake) will increase liquidity is flawed imo, dont really see how it will when when type 'B' players arent even probs aware of rake/how it works and the benefit from it will be minimal - as they have greatly reduced C4P multipliers....is it imo a 'money grab' from online poker sites as online poker  has had its boom and has probably reached saturation point, but of course business' need to constantly grow (in profit monetary terms) so this is really a capital/profit retainer masquerading as a fairer system - which will apparently lead to better games....i dont believe it

i hope to be proved wrong, i mean im all for it if 'liquidity' does somehow magically improve, but in order for that to happen sky would have to used retained profits from saved C4P to invest them into attracting new markets/more recreational players....which only they can really answer

so in summary it wouldnt be a welcome change for me and im selfish and it would effect my C4P rakeback and i dont think it will lead to better games - other things need to happen for that

[x] cue doomswitch

on a similar note that makes good reading...

Phil Galfond on changes that should b made online poker http://www.bestpokerrooms.com/news/phil-galfond-changes-need-to-be-made-to-online-poker/

EvilPingu

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

on a similar note that makes good reading... Phil Galfond on changes that should b made online poker  http://www.bestpokerrooms.com/news/phil-galfond-changes-need-to-be-made-to-online-poker/
Posted by sikas

+1

FlashFlush

I'm not clued up on all the nitty gritty stats and %'s of rakeback and technical stuff, I jusy stay in my own bubble, play what I want when I want and how I want. I make over 10k C4P every month and a nice profit to go with it. What I do know though is it's the regular grinders that pay the most rake, thats a given. If Sky do make changes and the regs are worse off, they will look elsewhere for better rakeback deals. FACT. There are plenty of other sites out there that will give very good rakeback.

Like I said I don't know who this will benefit if it does happen, only time will tell, but it is a waste of time helping out occasional players that probably don't even know they get C4P rather than making sure the high volume players are happy.

Machka

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

Machka IT RUDDY HAPPENED AGAIN lol http://i43.tinypic.com/hx6c77.jpg And some of the talk about stuff hasn't fully affected Sky. Still they are things to be considered because they will eventually happen here. Hope this post makes sense gonna click submit before the message  comes up again!
Posted by beaneh

Not laughng, honest.

I'm sure I figured this was only a Firefox issue, unless it's changed since browser updates.

I also think I remember I figured some way to recover the text that had been written, if I find the post I'll let you know.

scotty77

Regs should always be winning players.

Therefore a small amount of reduction in their cash 4 points payment shouldn't affect them that much.

If some of the sites breakeven/losing grinders (of which there are many) who only play for cash for points decide that the changes are so bad for them then they have to move sites then it will a) make the games better for the regs that stay...b) make the games more fun for the recreational players who really must hate seeing them folding for hours then suddenly get in their stack with AA/sets and c) if the games do get less reg filled/softer than the word will very quickly get out and some new regs will appear OR current regs will take advantage of this and increase their grind time

FlashFlush

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

Regs should always be winning players. Therefore a small amount of reduction in their cash 4 points payment shouldn't affect them that much. If some of the sites breakeven/losing grinders (of which there are many) who only play for cash for points decide that the changes are so bad for them then they have to move sites then it will a) make the games better for the regs that stay...b) make the games more fun for the recreational players who really must hate seeing them folding for hours then suddenly get in their stack with AA/sets and c) if the games do get less reg filled/softer than the word will very quickly get out and some new regs will appear OR current regs will take advantage of this and increase their grind time
Posted by scotty77

True. I'm not really taking sides either way on this, but at our cash level especially (50nl) this is the most beneficial level for rakeback and can't be ignored IMO. Getting 6 - 7 buy ins given to you every month can't be sniffed at.

I don't even know where I would fit into this. I'm not loose I know that, but I wouldn't say I'm a nit (even though I said that in a different reply). I guess I would be on the tighter side of average and this won't make much of a difference to me. I'm just putting across a different line of thinking. Being devils advocate I suppose.

beaneh

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

there is a wider argument here, but fwiw... i'm with AJS on this one the argument on here seems to be about being 'fairer' and sky increasing 'liquidity' right so ok it is a fairer system no denying it but regs ARE going to be worse off, say NL50 for example where i frequent, the player pool is made up of say 20 Regs and 100 recreational players (on a weekly basis - i.e. recreational may only play once a week) now whats gonna happen is regs' rakeback is gonna decrease by 20% to boost each of the recreational players rakeback/C4P by 4-5%, but it IS the regs that generate rake, a 'reg' is much more efficient at turning a £100 'deposit' into as much rake as possible as they play over and over again (even tho they're prob accumulating at the time), a reg will rake £100 and make £150, fish on the other hand will rake £10 and lose £100, leave then maybe come back next month. Reg's deposit to rake conversion ratio is much better, and sky's income is really only thru rake. and as for a 'liquidity', or bettering/increasing it theres 2 types on players, Type 'A' the 'Reg' and Type 'B' the recreational player/fish, and each have different needs, and for good 'liquidity' - a poker site business that is profitable/growing u need plenty of regs and a steady supply of recreational players Type 'A' is the reg, and his needs are fairly basic *steady supply of Type 'B' players *motivational bonuses (to drive rake generation) - such as C4P, the greater the incentive the more u are likely to play Type 'B' is the fish, and they need *Value for money *An enjoyable poker experience so lets break it down.... Value for Money: this is why bounty hunters/timed tournaments are so popular with recreational players, its very easy to make some sort of return on ur initial outlay whilst they enjoy their hobby -  to increase value for money for recreational players: * a better whay to do it would b to decrease the rake at the micros * educate the recreational player pool on BRM so that they get more play from the their £100 at NL10 than lol-playing NL100 for 30 mins (this is probs why all sky poker sites have online schools, the educate their market because ultimately better players play more, and generate more rake) * insert other suggestions here i cant think of An enjoyable poker experience - the worlds biggest poker room isnt 'stars, its 'zynga' poker (lol), why? cos its actually fun, theres trophies for getting royal flushes n sh**, u can use ur points/money to buy cigars+virtual booze lol, sounds bonkers to see but the fish fookin love it, sky are better off implementing some sort of 'Video Game' dynamic to sky to increase the supply and enjoyment of recreational players  and as for attracting new markets of recreational players the number 1 deterrent for online poker as far as a recreational player or even non-player/casual observer is concerned to widely believed conspiracy that online poker is rigg*d, so suppose thatd what u should combat  -Video poker tables mite b a good idea now the argument that WRC (weight contributed rake) will increase liquidity is flawed imo, dont really see how it will when when type 'B' players arent even probs aware of rake/how it works and the benefit from it will be minimal - as they have greatly reduced C4P multipliers....is it imo a 'money grab' from online poker sites as online poker  has had its boom and has probably reached saturation point, but of course business' need to constantly grow (in profit monetary terms) so this is really a capital/profit retainer masquerading as a fairer system - which will apparently lead to better games....i dont believe it i hope to be proved wrong, i mean im all for it if 'liquidity' does somehow magically improve, but in order for that to happen sky would have to used retained profits from saved C4P to invest them into attracting new markets/more recreational players....which only they can really answer so in summary it wouldnt be a welcome change for me and im selfish and it would effect my C4P rakeback and i dont think it will lead to better games - other things need to happen for that [x] cue doomswitch on a similar note that makes good reading... Phil Galfond on changes that should b made online poker  http://www.bestpokerrooms.com/news/phil-galfond-changes-need-to-be-made-to-online-poker/

Posted by sikas

Sikas you seem to be saying that regs are the most important players to be catering for, and that you are against the change because it isn't beneficial to you and because you don't agree with the idea of the change increasing/benefiting liquitidy. You seem to be missing the point with regards to over what time frame we are looking. Over the short term 'liquidity' ie the sum total of money sloshing about in the sky poker market will most likely reduce, however taking a long term view it is expected that there will be 'some liquidity' for longer. Any change that helps reduce the speed with which the liquidity of the sites different games deteriorates by is good.

I do not disagree that regs will be worse off (in a closed system if one person is going to benefit another must lose out) however if next week there are no games then are the regs not even worse off then? It's give and take. You seem to be misunderstanding the relationship between regs being the best rake generators for sky and the recreational players being the best for bringing money into the system to increase liquidity. As we can see just by looking at the HU lobby and by watching six max games, regs are unwilling to play other regs regularly and need a really 'fishy' reason for them to join a game. For a game to generat rake there needs to be people playing ldo and it is the those people that bring money into the system that sky MUST focus on. Without them there are no games and without games there is no rake.

It is very easy to be cynical of the motives for sky to implement this change, and say they are just trying to take more but there is no point in them taking  a larger slice of a non existent pie. It is pretty incredible to suggest that sky should look to zynga to improve itself 'because zynga has so many people playing' considering that zynga removed the major barrier for most people ie MONEY. Unsurprisingly alot more people are willing to play when they don't have to risk anything! 

 

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

I'm not clued up on all the nitty gritty stats and %'s of rakeback and technical stuff, I jusy stay in my own bubble, play what I want when I want and how I want. I make over 10k C4P every month and a nice profit to go with it. What I do know though is it's the regular grinders that pay the most rake, thats a given. If Sky do make changes and the regs are worse off, they will look elsewhere for better rakeback deals. FACT. There are plenty of other sites out there that will give very good rakeback. Like I said I don't know who this will benefit if it does happen, only time will tell, but it is a waste of time helping out occasional players that probably don't even know they get C4P rather than making sure the high volume players are happy.

Posted by FlashFlush

I really don't agree with this. As I have said above the long term health of the games relies on the money coming not from there being people who want to sit and fold all day. Referencing the moronic sites that give large proportions of rakeback, unsurprisingly these sites are also the ones that decided to release multiple affiliates to increase the liquidity of their network as a whole. However because they were inept and couldn't forsee the longterm implications of this strategy (and or they wanted immediate profits); you had 1 overall network, with 20 affilliates, these affiliates all offered rakeback percentages that the other networks couldn't match (because they were stupidly high) and so obviously people who were looking for 'easy money' flocked to their networks, and set up multiple accounts via the different affiliates. All these players then just sat in the games as often as possible playing as little as possible in an attempt to have as low a loss rate as possible, which they could then counter act by getting ridic amounts of rakeback in return. Each affilliate made money in proportionate terms to the amount of rake people put through the network so the sites didn't want to improve the network just their bottom line. This created a cycle of aggressive marketing strategies with the affiliates canaballising the players from other affililates on the same network. The network in question has now had to attempt to ban direct rakeback schemes, and is essentially slowly but surely going under. 

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

Regs should always be winning players. Therefore a small amount of reduction in their cash 4 points payment shouldn't affect them that much. If some of the sites breakeven/losing grinders (of which there are many) who only play for cash for points decide that the changes are so bad for them then they have to move sites then it will a) make the games better for the regs that stay...b) make the games more fun for the recreational players who really must hate seeing them folding for hours then suddenly get in their stack with AA/sets and c) if the games do get less reg filled/softer than the word will very quickly get out and some new regs will appear OR current regs will take advantage of this and increase their grind time

Posted by scotty77

+1

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : Not laughng, honest. I'm sure I figured this was only a Firefox issue, unless it's changed since browser updates. I also think I remember I figured some way to recover the text that had been written, if I find the post I'll let you know.

Posted by Machka

I've experienced the problem in both FF and Chrome, yet found no way to get around it and retrieve what is already entered in the forum window.  Try and remember please !!!

http://www.innocentenglish.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/cats-kitten-sink.jpg

GREGHOGG

fo with ur cute kittens in sinks

seriously tilting

p.s i actually read your last post

beaneh

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

fo with ur cute kittens in sinks seriously tilting p.s i actually read your last post
Posted by GREGHOGG

Do you just stalk me ?

I went for the old quote a long post to bulk up my own one

KITTENS FTW.

FlashFlush

My point though Beaneh is do the "rec" players really care that much about rakeback? Surely it's the grinders that play for the rakeback more. The rec players would be more interested in new offers/promotions on the site I.E forum comps, or 500 millionth hand etc, rather than whether their £50 rakeback is increased to £60 every month, while the regs could see their rake go from £400 to £300 for example.

I may be way off the mark, but just throwing it out there. **Insert kitten here**

ajs4385

I doubt a lot of recreational players know what rake is never mind rakeback.

What I would like to see is two VIP clubs.

1) for high volume grinders - basically a good rakeback deal. 

2) people who spend a lot - a club not advertsied (as its basically a losing players club.)  But where say somebody loses  e.g. 5k they get a decent gift sent through post like a ipad.  Or if they lose £500 they get a bottle of champagne  etc etc


btw I would rather play on a site with no rakeback at all and be super soft.

sikas

In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:

I doubt a lot of recreational players know what rake is never mind rakeback. What I would like to see is two VIP clubs. 1) for high volume grinders - basically a good rakeback deal.  2) people who spend a lot - a club not advertsied (as its basically a losing players club.)  But where say somebody loses  e.g. 5k they get a decent gift sent through post like a ipad.  Or if they lose £500 they get a bottle of champagne  etc etc btw I would rather play on a site with no rakeback at all and be super soft.
Posted by ajs4385

+1