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
hen i saw this post first thing, i thought that it was a brave point that you were making and you may get heat for it. However after reading what, may i say, has been a well conducted and amicable debate then i can now say that for me as a low stakes player looking to improve who sees even the reduced £100 buy in to a live T as expensive putting travel and board on top, my opinion has altered because of an excellent idea i've seen here.
At first, i thought yes, you can't stop people playing and taking the cash etc. However, its true that the idea is to provide a cheap way for a person unable to fund the buy in to have a chance at smething which is ordinarily out of their range. Regs now seem to play them as a T to further enrich their BR. That wasn't their initial aim SKY was it? So lets introduce the Tournament voucher to be traded in only by the person winning a place at a later date within say 2 seasons.
So you win a seat you use the seat...that should be the reason to play in a satellite....NOT to be use as another form of T. After all there is enough choice, although some would argue against that, i'm sure, there is a legitimate reason why they exist.
Thanks Chris for starting this thread..........If REGS are continually playing the game then let them find T's to further their roll and allow low stakers the chance to gain entry to a T normally out of reach. Swings and roundabouts are involved i'm sure but thats my opinion and i'm glad to say that i'm man enough to have changed it. Cheers Chris/scouse red
PS By the way, Chris, as a Blue, i'm straining my neck looking down the league at you at the moment! Ha!
If you're the player that wants the seat, if you win you will get it. If you lose, you will not. The only thing that deprives you of that seat is your own inability to win. Whatever those winning players choose to do with their winnings, the only thing they have done to "deprive" you of a seat is beat you at the table.
If you're not good enough or lucky enough to win, then you don't deserve to take anything out of the game. What you're effectively saying is, regardless of the rules of the game, you should be able to dictate how the winners spend their money. You have no right to do this. Once the game is over, the money belongs to the winner and it's for them to do with it what they will.
We all know the rules when we start to play. Regardless of what we might want the rules to be, we accept them as they are. If you don't like the rules, then don't play the game. Don't complain about the rules after you've lost.
I agree with you that players are quite entitled to take advantage of the rules that are in place, but that doesn't mean the rules are always right. Personally I put my money in and take my chances regardless of who else has entered, but it can be a little frustrating to some knowing players are only in it for the cash equivalent having already qualified or bought in direct.
I can't help wondering about something though......................................
If we buy in directly to a main event and then de-register, we automatically get our money back, however, if we satellite into a main event and de-register, we don't automatically get the cash equivalent? because the prize on offer was a seat into the main event.
So the question is.....why should the cash equivalent be paid if you have already qualified for the main when the prize on offer in the Tournament Description is a seat into a main?
Example of Tournament Description.
1 in 5 win a seat into the £6,000 Open Semi Final at 6pm tonight
If a cash equivalent is on offer then maybe it should be stated in the description.
Also, if a cash equivalent is given in a satellite instead of a seat (Usually because we have already qualified or bought in direct) then surely we should automatically be given the cash equivalent if we de-register after satelliting into a main event?
These are just my observasions since the subject has been raised. But as I said before, I pay my money and take my chances regardless of the field or their intentions and if "Negranu"happens to be on my table trying to pick up the cash equivalent he can stick it right up his jacksy
+1
This just about says it all.
If the money is siphoned off before the tournament starts
The tournament prize fund is reduced
The winner and those who cash have been deprived of their intended prize
What don't you get? its not rocket science! or is it?
I dont get what you just said.
What money is siphoned off which tourney?
If 5 people had already payed to go into the main and also registered for a satallite but didnt qaulify then there would be an extra seat in the satallite for the others.
Player who has already qualified through £5.20 satellite enters more satellites and wins taking £110 cash instead of a tournament seat
therefore taking £110 out of the SPT prizefund before the tournament commences
if a player decides to buy in then enters a satellite and wins and gets his entry back then fair play to them, nothing has been taken out of the tournament they have just managed to get in a cheaper way. i think if that same player then continued to enter satellites for the same event then thats a little wrong in my opinion but alot of players here are here to make money so they entitled to do it however they want, no matter how much it annoys anyone else.
SPT semi £24 1 in 5 qaulify.
100 runners so 20 win seats.
40 of those runners will either buy in or have qaulified already so there is an extra 8 seats due to those people.
Now lets say 5 of those qaulify this means that there is an extra 3 seats that go through that wouldnt have and now bump up the prize pool of the SPT by £300+
Your equation is based on these people qualifying everytime which surely is not right.
We're on the final table and one of the players tells everyone he's a student, doesn't have much of a bankroll and the £110 would mean a huge amount to him. He started asking how he could get the buy in value and not play the tournament. Someone told him to buy in first, get credited and then dereg. What went unspoken was if he could afford to buy in for the High Roller, and if not clearly he may have no intention of winning the FT as he wouldn't be able to get the cash value out. Questions for all:
1) Was I wrong to play this sat? I would say no
2) Many in this thread have come down like a ton of bricks on the larger bankrolled players playing sats for cash with no intention. Now you have a micro player doing it to whom a hundred quid is a lot of money. Are you going to crash down on him too? And if not, what's the difference between a micro BR and a large BR player doing it, they have, in the view of some people in the thread, 'deprived a player of a seat.' Can you distinguish the two without being a hypocrite? My answer to the last part is no you cannot.
Tikay posts threads advertising potential overlays for main events. To encourage participation
I may enter three or four satellites to make a main event, believing that no matter how many attempts I make to qualify, the money i've invested will be included in the prize fund.
From the comments on this thread, I now know, this is not the case. Others are not entering in good faith to take part in the tournament. What incentive do I have to take part if prizemoney is siphoned off?
You can't enter the lottery and when your first two numbers come out say stop! Ill take £6.67 instead!
In my opinion If you enter a satellite for an advertised tournament. All the proceeds from the satellite should go into the prizefund irrespective of whether its won by a high or low bankrolled player
What's the point of calling it a satellite and naming the event? If in a lot of instances the money goes elsewhere?
Prize money in a satellite is just that, prize money in a satellite. It is not the same as the prizepool for the main event and if someone takes that money they are not siphoning anything from the main event prize pool. The main event prize pool is whatever it is after the end of the registration period. That is when it is decided, not before.
If you believed that this money would be automatically entered into the prize pool of the main event you were mistaken. That is not the fault of anyone else and nor should you get angry about it. You may think that the value of the tournament has been reduced but so has the strength of the field. Less money for you to win but fewer players for you to beat.
So at a £110 SPT: £100 less in the prize pool. One fewer player in the field. This is obvious and neither advantages nor disadvantages you in any way (Unless the tournament fails to meet it's guarantee in which case you are clearly being advantaged).
Being angry about this is just as ridiculous as being angry about someone withdrawing their buy-in at the last minute. It's not any of your concern why they've done it. It doesn't take anything away from you.
I don't really care for the direction this thread has taken with some of the anger and insulting language that's been used. Up until now I haven't even addressed the issue of "Bigger Bankroll" players being responsible for this. As Tommy and Scotty have said, this is totally irrelevant. There is nothing unethical being done either way, it's merely that you feel that you are seeing better players playing multiple satellites and winning them. This is not something that you can get away from, though: good players win tournaments and as long as they have the right to enter these satellites, you do not have the right to tell them what to do.
Now, as some have said, whether they should be allowed to enter the satellites after buying in to the tournament is another issue. If you want Sky to change their satellite system then that's a matter for Sky. Insulting those winning players for having the temerity to win your money is not the way to go and it's not what you're actually upset about. If Sky changes to a ticketed system, satellite fields will shrink and tournament prize pools will also shrink (because as jonjo and Scotty have said, these players don't always win).
One last thing: Some seem to think that only big bankrolled players would ever do this. My account balance four weeks ago was £1.50. I won a satellite seat on a show competition but it was for UKOPS 4, which was a £55 rebuy. That meant I couldn't afford to compete on a level playing field without being willing to commit an extra £100 at least. That was not possible, so instead I deposited enough money to cover the entry free, won the satellite and took the £55 profit. That Saturday, because the standard of play in the previous satellite had been so poor, I played a £5 satellite to UKOPS 1. I won that satellite and then won the £110 from the semi. Playing a £110 tournament when I have so little money myself would have been a crazy gamble, so I didn't. The next day I played another £5 satellite, won that and failed in the semi. So in a few days I'd turned nothing into around £154. I hadn't done that by being devious, I'd done that by being good. Many of the players I was facing were inferior to me. Do those players have a right to tell me that I shouldn't take that money? No they don't. They lost fair and square, just as I did in the second Semi.
When people are given two legitimate options, suggesting that they deserve to be lambasted for choosing the one you don't like is daft. I earned that £154 by beating the field. Should I have passed up this opportunity to make some much needed money, simply because the weaker players in the field might have (mistakenly) perceived that I was doing something unethical?
None of that was anyones business but my own, quite frankly, but I don't mind sharing. Neither is the size of Scotty, Tommy or any other player's bankroll anyones business but their own. The only thing you have any control over or any right to discuss is your own situation. If a higher bankroll player beats you, it may well be because he's better than you. Once he's beaten you, you don't get to tell him what to do with that money. You certainly can't say to that player that he shouldn't be allowed to play against you because he can afford to play higher. It's not relevant that your opponent has more money in their roll.
If you want to get through more satellites, then the key is to improve your game. Don't take any interest in what others do with their money.
And frustration would be a better word than anger. The money I invest, buys a dream, and a few hours enjoyable entertainment at the table.
Below is the info for tonights SPT satellite.
SPT Semi Final 1 player in 5 will win a seat to the £20,000 SPT Luton on the 8th December at the G-Casino, Luton. Late Reg will be open for 30 minutes.
There is no mention of cash alternatives, but it is clear the seats offered as prizes are for a £30,000 tournament and make up part of that prizefund.
If Sky are happy that Satellite winners can withdraw cash equivalents prior to the finish of the £30,000tournament.
Under Trading Standards and Gaming legislation I believe it should be clearly stated and transparent.
So why is it omitted?
My opinion is that SKY run the tournaments to do exactly as it says on the can. To encourage participation in prestige tournaments.
I am hapy that you had a result! and applaud anyone who plays the game well!
I just feel that if you win your way into a main event through a satellite. You should be restricted from making further attempts for the same tournament or Sky should create Satellites for tournament tokens that offer entry into similar tariff events
I imagine Sky don't advertise the cash equivalent option on the satellite lobby simply because they don't want players to do that. They want players to go into the main event. However they do allow players to take the cash equivalent and as long as they do, it's the right of any player to take up that option. The players are not doing anything underhanded and should not be accused of doing so.
I very much doubt that there's any statute that would dictate exactly how poker tournament winnings are used. You're wrong to say that "...it is clear the seats offered as prizes are for a tournament and make up part of that prizefund." They do not make up part of that main event prizepool. The main event prizepool is as described in the main event lobby, when the main event registration period ends. It is seperate from the satellite prizepool, even if one usually pays into the other.
The idea of a ticketed system is a sound one. I have no real preference between the two alternatives. It would solve the problem raised by PokerTrev about players not being able to de-register from the main if they satellited in. The situation of being unable to de-reg without losing your money is ridiculous. If the in-laws pop in or you need to give the dog a bath, you ought to be able to change your mind about playing a tournament without taking a hit to your wallet.
There's always two sides to a story.
I Hope Sky Management take a positive from the comments.
There are quite a number who believe Satellites to obtain a universal entry token woulld be a good idea.
Maybe a weekly tournament could take place for £55 £110 & £220 tournament tokens where the winners (1/5) could decide how to use the token, be it cash, stt, sng or mtt.
For myself I'd love to have a go and if I did cash I'd love to save them for SPT's UKOPS or Viva Las Vegas etc
It always seems too much of a rush to qualify in a short period of time.
Running them throughout the year could boost fields for the big events. Any thoughts?