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
Hi Tommy,
I never suggested you, or anyone else, was wrong or right Tommy, I just pointed out what, in my personal opinion, was an imbalance, an oddity, which no one else had commented upon, & I had wanted - I live in hope of so many things! - would give better balance to the thread.
You briefly alluded - in not so many words - to peer pressure. As a Teacher, I'm sure you understand what a powerful force that it. We certainly cannot deny it exists.
I have no idea if they will try that or not, but have you not answered your own question, via the first sentence of the part I highlighted??
Having said that i appriciate you get some traffic from people who proboably browse around sites to look for a tournamtnet with a prizepool that they want to play in. So for these people that it may effect i thought i would but my 2pence worth in
Yes peer pressure is huge for threads like this. So many times on forums people either back down, revert opinions or decide to not post because of the opinions expressed by other members of their peer group. It's not the fault of the regs posting, that's just the way things have been since cavemen were deciding on using rocks or sticks to bash dinosaurs (the last comment may not be historically accurate).
I find it extraordinary that after a measly 32 votes and even less comments Sky decided to change things albeit on a trial basis. I played 4 UKOPS mini events that had an average field of 481. The £5-50 buy in was above my usual limit but 4 games aren't going to affect my BR. The £3-30 "normal" mini I sometimes play has a field of about 300 (correct me if I'm wrong this is a guesstimate). So with roughly 10% of the players voting after just 4 hours you change things. In my opinion this change was totally premeditated. I will be interested to see what Sky do after the trial but my moneys on the £5-50 being across the board giving us lower buy in players even less game options. And like others have said it is for the challenge and the chance of a bigger cash than I usually make.
However from a business point of view, an awful lot of players in the minis are not 'serious' poker players, many of them will be 'net depositors'. They are recreational players who come on of an evening to play a game of poker and have no concern whatsoever over bankroll management, they may be quite happy to lose £5.50 every night of the week for the chance to escape from every day life etc..... I suspect to alot of these player a lift from £3.30 to £5.50 is going to be negligable, another £2.20 is nothing in the grand scheme of things and if the guarantees go up and the payouts go up, that will be alot more appealing to these recreational player (who make up the majority of the field). It's a balancing act!
I think the real issue underlying all this is that there seems to be a trend towards losing the smaller tournaments in favour of bigger buyins on Sky, which for the reasons above I can fully understand. However, to make that sustainable over time there needs to be new big bankroll players coming through. These will not generally come from the rectreational players, they will come from the pool of players that are taking the game seriously, the ones that are studying the game, posting on the forum and practicing good bankroll management, ie. the player who are posting on here and voicing their concerns.
I have no issue with the buyin for the minis going up to £5.50 as it's actually a level that suits me personally better. However if this does happen Sky has to be aware of the effect it has on the lower bankrolled players and should really do something to ensure these players are also catered for because at the moment all they see is more and more of 'their' tournaments being taken away in favour of bigger buyins which to me seems very shortsighted by Sky.
If you are managing your Bank Roll "properly" it means you need a 66% greater roll to regularly play £5.50s rather than £3.30s.
Also, "If you can afford 3.30 then surely you can afford £5.50 right? " why not if you can afford 5.50 then you can afford £8, then £11, then .....
That would just split the liquidity.
Agree that the numbers will probably increase in the coming weeks, and if that is the criteria for change then obviously Sky should proceed.
Everyone is different, I would play a £3.30 tournament without worrying too much, but if a £3,30 Mini option was taken out of the equation for good I might think about just entering the £5.50 replacement less often.
If Sky are changing things for a week it will be interesting to see what difference the changes have on uptake.
Is it not reasonable to expect a decrease in the number of recreational players taking part for fun?
Does that not devalue the achievement in winning the Jackpot?
I seem to remember when Dylan won there were over 500 in both the Main and Mini.
If Main and Mini numbers fall, surely Sky will drop the Jackpot at some point if It's won more frequently?
Or am I well of the mark? Do we still get 500+ in the mini?