RIP Survivor final

Dazler

Just noticed that there are only 5 people in the survivor final with £320 for 1st and thats it. Does this mean its died a death i thought this was a popular game and realise a few will buy in direct but is it really worth it for £64 when you can buy in a 10k mtt for half that, but a whole week and only 5 in it!. Seems like another fail to me. Hope things improve and i know the summer is a slow period but thats just mad. Whats going on?

TommyD

The major problem with Survivor is it's very difficult for recreational players to commit to every night of the week.  While I think it's great fun and have played it in the past from the start, that has always been the flaw with what is a good idea.

GaryQQQ

It's been a fail for ages, I'm surprised it wasn't scrapped a long time ago.

Survivor has never been raked and there's overlay in the final most weeks. It must have cost Sky a fortune. When it started the guarantee was £2,500. Nowadays the Survivor final is essentially a sit-n-go for a small group of tournament sharks who buy-in on the day for £64 and have a huge edge of the 4 or 5 real 'survivors' who've battled their way through all week.

Lambert180

Yeah I agree, and it is a shame to see it fail like this.

I've only played it twice and only ever from the Sunday for £1. As you mentioned about buying in for £64 and much better value in other games, I think it's only really worth it if you get in it from one of the very early days, like £4 max.

But yeah, buying in direct seems a bit mental unless the guarantee get smashed by lots of bad players qualifying and it is a big ask for people to play so many nights in a row.

It was a great idea though, just didn't work out that well in reality. Happy for Sky to keep trying new things though until they get something that works.

EvilPingu

I don't think you can measure the success of Survivor based on whether or not it makes the guarantee on Saturday. 

Survivor brings people back the next day when they might not have logged on otherwise, and they may decide to play something else as well, which is where Sky (presumably) looks to make money from Survivor. There's no way they'd run a rake-free tournament otherwise. It's like going to the shop to buy a pack of cigarettes - The shop makes next to nothing on them cigarettes. They make their money from you coming to the shop when you wouldn't otherwise, and buying other stuff at the same time.

IDONKCALLU

the buy in is not mental when it 1st started used to be 2kgtd 64 buy in used to be 20 players so good overlay and the regs used to pay on the final day thinking great overlay then tey changed the gtd to 1k gtd as it was slowly going down hill but only 10 players £64 buy in so £360 overlay and ya still get couple of regs buy in on the final thinking WOOOOOOOOW massive overlay    i hope this doesnt happen on sky because they will lose alot of customers if they stop the guarentee in tourneys thats why people play them thinking oooo value here with abit if overlay 

Dazler

I think if you had a 3 or 4 day survivor it would be more successful as it is a big ask to play a whole week. I havnt played in them because on saturdays i have had places to be so no point in me playing. But if the final was during the week i would definitely play in it.

IDONKCALLU

i dunno y they dont do the 1k gtd still but as tommy said alot of people this time of year cant play everyday of the week so why not do sattelites for the survivor like they do in the main events of every daily tourney 

Lambert180

Are you mad, the survivor is a satellite lol. You don't have to buy-in for £1 on Sunday, you can join on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday etc.

Tikay10

"Survivor" is due to be freshened up, maybe changed considerably, & this is currently under discussion.

Options include giving it a rest during the Summer.

I'll let you know when a decision has been made.  

FlyingDagg

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

It's been a fail for ages, I'm surprised it wasn't scrapped a long time ago. Survivor has never been raked and there's overlay in the final most weeks. It must have cost Sky a fortune. When it started the guarantee was £2,500. Nowadays the Survivor final is essentially a sit-n-go for a small group of tournament sharks who buy-in on the day for £64 and have a huge edge of the 4 or 5 real 'survivors' who've battled their way through all week.
Posted by GaryQQQ

I would argue with that. I always play Survivor from the Sunday and have reached 4 finals with 4 cashes. Every time I have made the final there have been 3 regular players who have bought in and the "Survivor" players have always performed better than the direct buy ins. I'd like to see some of the £64 buy ins start from the Sunday and see how far they get!

Dazler

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

"Survivor" is due to be freshened up, maybe changed considerably, & this is currently under discussion. Options include giving it a rest during the Summer. I'll let you know when a decision has been made.   
Posted by Tikay10

N1 for the tip TK always nice to know things are being kept fresh and worth our while in terms of keeping us interested in different ideas and formats, look forward to hearing about it.

uncle0nion

how can regs make the assumption that qualifiers for survivor final are weaker players?  If anything, they are likely to be very strong players who don't wish (for whatever reason) to invest a huge bankroll in poker.  To survive 6 consecutive nights is likely to rule out luck, so a bit more respect please

Lambert180

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

how can regs make the assumption that qualifiers for survivor final are weaker players?  If anything, they are likely to be very strong players who don't wish (for whatever reason) to invest a huge bankroll in poker.  To survive 6 consecutive nights is likely to rule out luck, so a bit more respect please
Posted by uncle0nion

To be fair, I made it through to the final from Sunday for £1 and I suck lol. This was a while ago, but when I did it, the fields were so big that it was ridiculously easy, for example, when you get 100 runners it's VERY easy to finish in the top 50.

IDONKCALLU

in view to uncleonions view u have a fair point that is u make it thru 6 days so must be good to make it in the final but theres no money up to the final i think u fiond the regs that pay are better because when a recrational player plays they get bit nervous when it gets closer to the cash making tight folds and some wrong decisions imo letting the money affect there decisions as it is a alot of money for a cash from a small investment i might be tottally wrong just how i see it so i think the regs have a egde in that respext they go more for the win not the cash leading up to the final theres no cash so its like a dym simples really the final is completly different and it would affect u if u brought in for a quid to win potentially 500 

FlyingDagg

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

how can regs make the assumption that qualifiers for survivor final are weaker players?  If anything, they are likely to be very strong players who don't wish (for whatever reason) to invest a huge bankroll in poker.  To survive 6 consecutive nights is likely to rule out luck, so a bit more respect please
Posted by uncle0nion

100% agree with this. Some players (no names mentioned) think they have a divine right to cash when they buy in for £64. I was called a total luckbox when I took out one of the buyin players. A luckbox would not get through 6 nights of poker to make the final. It's a pity that it doesn't get more runners because the core of people that do play from the off seem to enjoy it and it's played in good spirit. When you get a player who you knocked out wishing you good luck and then actually railing you in the final ( and not a fellow team member either) makes for a good experience.

ajmilton

At 6.00pm the lobby showed 3 survivor's... prize pool £162.00 for first place.
At 7.30pm the lobby showed 9 survivor's... prize pool £432= first £144= 2nd

No £1000 guarantee..
6 direct buy in's for £64
Hope this isn't the end of survivor, i think Sky needs to bring back the guarantee.

GaryQQQ

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

At 6.00pm the lobby showed 3 survivor's... prize pool £162.00 for first place. At 7.30pm the lobby showed 9 survivor's... prize pool £432= first £144= 2nd No £1000 guarantee.. 6 direct buy in's for £64 Hope this isn't the end of survivor, i think Sky needs to bring back the guarantee.
Posted by ajmilton

The guarantee was dropped because there was overlay nearly every week. You can't blame Sky; it must have been very expensive to them when you consider this tournament has never been raked.

The 6 buying in for £64 consider it a +ev spot because there is no rake charged and they feel they have an edge over the 3 real survivors. RIP Survivor, unless it can be reinvented in a better format I don't think it'll be with us much longer.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

The major problem with Survivor is it's very difficult for recreational players to commit to every night of the week.  While I think it's great fun and have played it in the past from the start, that has always been the flaw with what is a good idea.
Posted by TommyD

Yeah, this!

I would play it every week if i played every night. Unfortunately with the baby arriving i am lucky if i get on a couple of times a week and its usually extremely interupted play then. However, even before i had a kid, i still couldnt commit to playing every night. I played the first ever one which spanned across about 6 weeks and i played every Tuesday or something which was better for a recreational player like myself.

Love the concept, just cant commit to it! Shame really!

DOHHHHHHH

Reduce the Sunday 'survivor' entry to 50p.

Scrap the survivor, increase the Saturday main event buy in to £32+1. (10k gtd)

Make it through survivor = seat in following weeks Saturday main.

More players in main, 1 less pointless sng disguised as an MTT clogging up the already messy MTT lobby.

Also sort the filters out sky :P

MP33

I used to play it when it first started and made the final from a quid once

I played it this week for the first time in a while . I thought i,d save some money as it would be a good excuse to stay in for a week presuming i did well.
I manged to last till Wednesday when i bubbled by playing a hnad i didnt need to, but was also suprised to see the entrants and prizepool tonight

Another reason for playing it was there was no rake and it was something completely different. Its a shame it seems to have lost its appeal but like most ppl i can,t commit every night  for a whole week, but hopefully something similar can be introduced as it was one of the most fun games on here



MP

pomfrittes

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

I think if you had a 3 or 4 day survivor it would be more successful as it is a big ask to play a whole week. I havnt played in them because on saturdays i have had places to be so no point in me playing. But if the final was during the week i would definitely play in it.
Posted by Dazler

   +1, maybe start it saturday and have final Friday could work.

MRBURNS4

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final : I would argue with that. I always play Survivor from the Sunday and have reached 4 finals with 4 cashes. Every time I have made the final there have been 3 regular players who have bought in and the "Survivor" players have always performed better than the direct buy ins. I'd like to see some of the £64 buy ins start from the Sunday and see how far they get!
Posted by FlyingDagg

Always Dagg?  Now think hard before you answer lol

FlyingDagg

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final:

In Response to Re: RIP Survivor final : Always Dagg?  Now think hard before you answer lol
Posted by MRBURNS4

I said 3 regulars. Yours was a one off freak win lol.
And I think it's had its day now. I noticed that last night that only 3 players made it to the final before the Saturday buyins.

Slykllist

I'd really like to have a good go at the survivor from the Sunday but my problem is I know I won't be able to commit to playing seven days in a row, I suspect this is similar for alot of recreational players.  It's a shame because as a format I think it's an excellent idea.

How about a team survivor?  Teams of 2 or 3 where any of the players can play any night, would certainly give more players more of an opportunity to give it a go, although I suspect the logistics of actually making this work would be a nightmare!