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
Lets just get told that March 2004 was a double points month ..... marv.
(below is taken from phil galfond's blog post on this subject titled 'Let's make some changes')
"2) King of the Hill – A specific number of (non-full) HU tables are allowed at any point. This means that those willing to play anyone will end up “holding” the tables, as the only way to take it from them is to play against one of them until they leave.
King of the Hill (from now on: KotH) encourages action between regulars and makes online poker less intimidating and embarrassing for recreational players. It gives priority to stronger players, and those who give action. (This could be considered a good or bad thing, but certainly is good from a sites perspective, as it encourages players to give action)
A major downside of KotH is that it could prevent some games from occurring. If average reg A and average reg B would be willing to play each other, they no longer have a chance to, since neither will claim a HU table, and neither wants to play Tough pro A, B, or C in order to get that table. This was a very good argument against KotH structure four years ago. It doesn’t totally hold water today. It’s very rare that these HU matches are taking place. That said, it still would be bad to prevent them from happening, should things ever change and people start playing poker again."
basically it means that the HU lobby would be as it's "meant to be" as in a 25p/50p 6max reg cant just sit in at £25/£50 HU table proceed to bH and show a profit. they would have to play against anyone who sits down, or be forced to leave the table after certain amount of timesim - I meant only priority members can wait for ND, but anyone can join any hu table (only idea not sayin will work or happen)
I am sooooo looking forward to beaneh response too, he always puts a lot of time and effort into replys to my posts. I am flattered by it. Wonder what hes putting, hes taking his time isnt he. I think he wants it to be perfect, wonder if he is getting someone to proof read it. I cant wait!
The thread has been very useful in fact, to gauge people's opinion, but the suggestions have been by the players, not Sky Poker.
I believe that the proposed solution that Sky Poker are currently evaluating will work, & without making anything elitist. It can be quite quickly implemented, too.
The "chat restrictions"? That was such a shame, & Sky Poker did everything they could before bringing it in, they asked players, they warned them, but abuse of people playing for high stakes could not be allowed to continue, & almost all of the abuse came from players who play smaller stakes, or in some cases, not at all, they just wanted to abuse people. It had to be stopped I'm afraid. The players themselves (those who abused others who were playing) have to take some responsibility for their actions.
I don't quite see what else could have been done really. I agree though, it is a terrible shame. Another of poker's mysteries, why some people are so normal in real life, but become so abusive Online.
Apologies - I think I jumped the gun there - these Restrictions are UNDER DISCUSSION, & have not been introduced yet as far as I know.
It is almost certain that they will, though.
I have to say though I can't help but think this is a desperate plea from AJS as he has noticed his win rate has obviously dwindled severly this year. please note this isn't a personal dig merely an observation. Thats part of the game though I'm afraid & I'm sure everyones has to be honest.
Going round in circles and having personal squabbles isn't going to help anyone here. What we need is Sky to give a statement on their opinion and intentions for the matter at hand. Then, whether we like it or not, we all just have to accept it, it's impossible to keep everyone happy.
In regards to the Cash Game Rake Race (or whatever the promotion being laid on next month is), that will only act as a temporary fix unless it is going to become a regular fixture (every 2 or 3 months).
But first of all it is ironic that the player who treats recreational players worse than anyone on 6max tables with
regards to etiquette has the nerve to post this kind of astounds me to begin with, though i shouldn't be suprised given previous posts by you.
I definitely don't agree with taking out heads up tables(shock i know), reg on reg games still do happen and some recreational players much prefer it over 6max, to just outright delete it seems abrupt without trying other less extreme solutions. This is obviously a very difficult thing to do as all the other sites are trying to find the same solutions.
We do kind of have the king of the hill system in place already and from all i've read on the subject it seems the fairest way to distribute tables. I guess the main issue is Sky's software and what it can implement on the current system, can you actually restrict the amount of empty tables each reg can sit? can you give out punishments to people who table block because they aren't willing to fight for a table? etc. so this system is more effective.
It would be nice if Sky consulted us with major decisions like this before they go ahead or atleast outlined what
solutions they are looking at and what are most likely in their thoughts so no clangers are potentially dropped.
As for the incoming chat ban for observers it's clear this was needed so kudos for that.
People complaining about lower numbers need to look at themselves on the tables along with obvious external issues, heads up hasn't just come out of nowhere to ruin 6max action.
The main problem with 'must rake certain amount to sit hu rule' is it's just too elitist and unfair on the bulk of the player pool. Even if it's with good intentions. I can't help but feel it would be better to remove the specifically HU tables all together.
I'll PM you a guess.
i play almost solely 6max and assume i am one of the people who in theory should benefit most from the removal of heads up tables. but i'm not convinced this is true at all.
if you removed heads up this would surely lower the number of net depositors who make their way to the site? i dont see why they would choose to deposit their money here rather than elsewhere when there is a wider variety on offer at the other site.
removing heads up should mean that they make their way to my 6 max tables but logically (to me at least) there would be less of them on the site for me to benefit from. would the games really improve that much for the 6max reg?
there seems to be a range of better solution imo
surely find a better way to address regs sitting on lots of hu tables
what I don't understand, why sit at 4-5 HU tables when
why not sit at one table, when someone joins - open up another table
my point was that the pro who does this will just shrug and move on if sky try to hold them to ransom about game selection. they will NOT start playing 6max if they don't already.
that was my point ajs which you clearly didn't understand.
and yeah i don't play 100nl, which obviously gives you reason to act like a tool bag over it. actually aren't you the one who has been belittled in the past for being rubbish at poker but good at grinding rakeback? probably why you want these fish at your tables
EDIT oh look after i post i read all the replies from said actual good players.
PPS, i like how you also assumed i don't play 100nl. how do you know? i've got 6 figures in an investment which i can choose to withdraw once a year, but i never do, doesn't mean i'm going to quit my job as a chef or just deposit loads because i can. idiot.