Be honest with us....!

Sky_Poker · March 2013

OK, here's an example....

Just before we wrote this, at 25p/50p (and other levels above and below too) there were about 8 live tables running with 6/6 seated. On the waiting lists for those tables were enough players to start other tables. There's also people seated at those tables multitabling who would play on another table if it started.

But at that time, nobody was starting a new table.

It's not the world's biggest issue for us, people are doing what they wan't, but we run promotions to help like this (specifically early bird) and want them to be (a) understood (b) valued and (c) beneficial for you.

Just to be clear (because we've steered of topic a bit) - we're interested in why people are reluctant to start cash tables, even those not so much motivated by seeking out value etc.

An interesting discussion.

beaneh · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

OK, here's an example.... Just before we wrote this, at 25p/50p (and other levels above and below too) there were about 8 live tables running with 6/6 seated. On the waiting lists for those tables were enough players to start other tables. There's also people seated at those tables multitabling who would play on another table if it started. But at that time, nobody was starting a new table. It's not the world's biggest issue for us, people are doing what they wan't, but we run promotions to help like this (specifically early bird) and want them to be (a) understood (b) valued and (c) beneficial for you. Just to be clear (because we've steered of topic a bit) - we're interested in why people are reluctant to start cash tables, even those not so much motivated by seeking out value etc. An interesting discussion.
Posted by Sky_Poker

new tables start short handed, therefore if you have learnt your list of 4 playable hands at 6 max, you are confused as to how to play. Combine that with often times the people who start games will be regular players and the fact most regs hate the game and just want free money many people refuse to sit.

if they did until the game filled up they would be playing shorthanded for a while, which requires more decisions than 6 max, so obviously that also puts them off. similarly if they are 11 tabling and have space for one more table, they are probably happy to flick in a full 6max game that they can fold all non KK hands in but adding in one shorthanded game would require a different base strategy mind-set which is obv way too far fetched.

it's all very simple really.

craigcu12 · March 2013

if it is just the no. of people waiting for a game instead of joining a new table, why don't you only have a waiting list for the action, HU and master cash tables as they limited.

68Trebor · March 2013

I don't think the early bird really works as the difference it makes to your total C4P is minimal as once a table gets started it soon fills up so you receive the 50% boost for a very small amount of time.

2 ideas would be as follows.

1. Increase the amount of C4P you receive related to the number of tables you are playing. E.G. if you are playing 3 tables you recieve a 5% boost, play on 4 tables you receive a 7% boost and so on and so on. This would encourage people to play more tables and would therefore encourage players to start up new tables.

2. Introduce tables that will not start up until at least 4 players seated. This would encourage people to sit at a table and not be scared of ending up playing short handed.

beaneh · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

I don't think the early bird really works as the difference it makes to your total C4P is minimal as once a table gets started it soon fills up so you receive the 50% boost for a very small amount of time. 2 ideas would be as follows. 1. Increase the amount of C4P you receive related to the number of tables you are playing. E.G. if you are playing 3 tables you recieve a 5% boost, play on 4 tables you receive a 7% boost and so on and so on. This would encourage people to play more tables and would therefore encourage players to start up new tables. 2. Introduce tables that will not start up until at least 4 players seated. This would encourage people to sit at a table and not be scared of ending up playing short handed.
Posted by 68Trebor

though ideas are welcomed etc,

increasing c4p relative to the number of tables played would benefit sky but would have a horrible effect on the games, you already get people playing as many tables as possible to get c4p, doing this would just get even more people playing even more tables even tighter (like when it wasn't done via weighted) which is one of the nut worst things for the state of the games and the recreational players.

if you sit down to 1 table a game of poker, and the 5 people on your rtable who all sit in with you but not when it's just them 5, then all just sit playing sub 10% of hands you're very soon just goint to want to kill yourself and stop playing.

currently the regs are so scummy we essentially have your second suggestion.

The_Don90 · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : though ideas are welcomed etc, increasing c4p relative to the number of tables played would benefit sky but would have a horrible effect on the games, you already get people playing as many tables as possible to get c4p, doing this would just get even more people playing even more tables even tighter (like when it wasn't done via weighted) which is one of the nut worst things for the state of the games and the recreational players. if you sit down to 1 table a game of poker, and the 5 people on your rtable who all sit in with you but not when it's just them 5, then all just sit playing sub 10% of hands you're very soon just goint to want to kill yourself and stop playing. currently the regs are so scummy we essentially have your second suggestion.
Posted by beaneh

This is a very good point. I played NL20 briefly a few weeks ago. Literally looked at every single table and bar one which was 4 handed and i joined, every other table hand 5 of 7 different regs and one poor sod. I think only one or two of the regs playing at the time would play a decent amount of hands.

Its obviously going to get to a point where the "weaker" players will eventually just say stuff this and either they do one of two things

1) Quit Poker - bad for us

2) Go play on another site - bad for us.

If im honest i really don't know what sky can do to make that issue better. Regs have to admit that they have to look after their own interests. And if generating 0000's of C4P is top priority then so be it. Otherwise you need to make the "weaker" players feel valued. If someone is happy losing money then they might come back and lose some more. If they feel you will fold till you have aces then there is little point.

I play in a local live game some weeks, some of the more experianced regs often buy the weaker players a pint or two. Not because their mates, or because they want them to get drunk, but they want them to enjoy themselves enough that they come back.

sighcall · March 2013

From my experience if you sit in as soon as it reaches 3 handed the table seems to fill up pretty quickly. Therefore the 50% is hardly noticable and means you have to play a few hands 3 handed which i dont like as much as 6 handed as you get more rake as more hands see the flop. So the extra poins isnt worth the extra rake.

I think you could improve it by offering 50% additional to the 1st 3 players for the first 50 hands or so. Therefore the people who join early get something extra than the others who join late. Unlike currently where they dont get anything extra when the layers have joined - only when players 4,5 and 6 arnt there..

Alternativley 100% to 1st, 50% 2nd 25% 3rd 10% 4th or something.

The problem is you may get loads of tables with just 3 playes then they may leave and start a new table.

Lambert180 · March 2013

Am not sure it can be fixed tbh, it's the mentality of certain players to have a shorter term view of their actions.

Imagine the proposition for some people... (take a 50NL player), you can sit short handed with some very good players, and probably lose money long term against better players for the sake of an extra 50 points (which at best will be like £2-£3

OR

You can sit round, wait for someone who has no idea what they're doing, win a few easy BIs and miss out on that small bit of C4P.

I should point out I'm not condoning this behaviour in the slightest. I think it's terrible etiquette and is terrible for the game long term, but the problem is to change the entire mindset of some players and they are faced with the 2 options above and it's pretty obvious which one is preferred.

Personally if I'm playing at a level that I'm rolled for, like 20NL, there isn't a single player I would not sit down and play with. Evidenced by the fact I regular sit with and get owned by Rancid

"You can shear a sheep many times but you can only skin it once."

DeuceAK_47 · March 2013

Reason's for regs not to play hu:

-Higher Variance

-Needs higher concentration (hard when playing 12 tables)

-Alot of the tags at the lower levels are on the passive side which is not a very good strategy hu (eg playing a 17/9 preflop style)

beaneh · March 2013

another large site has made some recent changes, to create new 'table starter lists' so when X number of people sign up for a table a new table pops up and is populated with those players. rather than a couple of players just sitting at tables sat out.

interesting, will see how it plays out.

jonjo75 · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

another large site has made some recent changes, to create new 'table starter lists' so when X number of people sign up for a table a new table pops up and is populated with those players. rather than a couple of players just sitting at tables sat out. interesting, will see how it plays out.
Posted by beaneh

This sounds like a good idea to me.

devonfish5 · March 2013

i've only started playing cash seriously anyway this year after playing dym's all last year.
i'd heard of the 'early bird' promotion but didn't really understand it or bother to find out.
i thought it was to do with getting something extra for starting up tables,but didn't know the ins & outs of it ,if u like.
as i prefer to play on a table with at least 3 or 4 other players already sat down,i wouldn't or haven't ever started up a table myself.
(* *)
^
dev
ps;i also voted...no,i don't understand it

MattBates · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : If im honest i dont give a monkey about Cash for Points. I see it as a nice little top up but ive given up trying to make an amount worthwhile like you guys do. If im honest i feel that MTT players cant make priority. I probably brought it up in the wrong section.
Posted by The_Don90

Don,

The majority of my games are MTT, I have made priority last two months but it is very difficult. I have had to play a bit of cash/DyM etc to get there. As mentioned by others I pay less rake and therefore expect less back!

Finally plus 1 to what Beaneh said!

Matt

The_Don90 · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : Don, The majority of my games are MTT, I have made priority last two months but it is very difficult. I have had to play a bit of cash/DyM etc to get there. As mentioned by others I pay less rake and therefore expect less back! Finally plus 1 to what Beaneh said! Matt
Posted by MattBates

My point was probably worded badly not my strong point, and well off topic as to the thread. Thanks for the responce but i think its best to drop the issue.

i have stated my opinions on the thread aswell on page 2 in detail.

D_Legend · March 2013

ok well in terms off the early bird promotion.

problems

- hu action is very contration draing (whislt multitabling)

- the annoying blind skip when the 3rd player joins.

- tables at lower limits fill up very quick thus make the early bird promtion pointless as u get 4/5 hands in and the 4th person normally joins. (most of the time)

- but 50% boost of what ????? i don't even no what the rake is per point ???

to add like others said i think a the points structure needs to be equal because at present it is a bit lop sided in the favour of stt/ mtt players.

one example the 30p dym u get one point but if two cash players rake 5p each they dont get 1point.

FCHD · March 2013

I know exactly how it works, but as the only cash I play is at 2p/4p and I never get anywhere near 500 points, the early bird promotion (or the happy hour promotion either) is of no use to me.

Oh, and sign Beaneh up to the management of the site. He/she speaks more sense than the rest of us put together.

Lambert180 · March 2013

Beaneh the he/she ^^^ lol

Anyway...

Beaneh - If Sky put that in place on here, so say there were 12 players @ 50NL sat on waiting lists they'd just be snap sat down on 2 new tables. Are the offenders not just gonna snap stand?

Like is the main issue refusing to play HU/shorthanded OR is it refusing to play competent opponents OR both? Because if they won't play competent people and they get put on a table with them, they'll just snap stand.

sighcall · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : ya obviously this is the case, because of the rake structures, and the avg length of mtts vs 1 hand of cash. no one is forced to play any format that they don't want to. the problem for the site is that the bulk of the players who play 'regularly' sit folding to rack up the points and then get the rakeback, not for the love of the game or to enjoy it or w/e hence it can be so impossibly hard to start games.
Posted by beaneh

Surely now they have changed the format this is less of the case, as you cant just 'sit' there and rack up points, you have to get involved??

DOHHHHHHH · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

From my experience if you sit in as soon as it reaches 3 handed the table seems to fill up pretty quickly. Therefore the 50% is hardly noticable and means you have to play a few hands 3 handed which i dont like as much as 6 handed as you get more rake as more hands see the flop. So the extra poins isnt worth the extra rake. I think you could improve it by offering 50% additional to the 1st 3 players for the first 50 hands or so. Therefore the people who join early get something extra than the others who join late. Unlike currently where they dont get anything extra when the layers have joined - only when players 4,5 and 6 arnt there.. Alternativley 100% to 1st, 50% 2nd 25% 3rd 10% 4th or something. The problem is you may get loads of tables with just 3 playes then they may leave and start a new table.
Posted by sighcall

+1, it's easy to start games @ 30nl.

Can't you make some cash tables where the rake is lower than normal, but where players don't recieve any points (and therefore no rakeback) whilst playing on these specific tables?

Sky still make the same money as what they lose on rake they get back by paying out less rakeback?

I'm sure these tables will appeal more to casual players and non-grinders.

Sounds obvious, what have I missed?

edit* also get antes into mtts asap (should be no.1 priority anyway), then you can start ante cash games, which will help.

DeuceAK_47 · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : +1, it's easy to start games @ 30nl. Can't you make some cash tables where the rake is lower than normal, but where players don't recieve any points (and therefore no rakeback) whilst playing on these specific tables? Sky still make the same money as what they lose on rake they get back by paying out less rakeback? I'm sure these tables will appeal more to casual players and non-grinders. Sounds obvious, what have I missed? edit* also get antes into mtts asap (should be no.1 priority anyway), then you can start ante cash games, which will help.
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

+1 essentially a flat rakeback system.

At the moment with the loyalty scheme:

If a reg play's Sky for one month of the year at 200nl and pay's £5000 rake (30,000 points) they get £1140 rakeback (22.8%)

Where as a 4nl player who rake's £5000 over the year (2500 points a month) will only get £360 rakeback (7.2%)

sighcall · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : +1, it's easy to start games @ 30nl. Can't you make some cash tables where the rake is lower than normal, but where players don't recieve any points (and therefore no rakeback) whilst playing on these specific tables? Sky still make the same money as what they lose on rake they get back by paying out less rakeback? I'm sure these tables will appeal more to casual players and non-grinders. Sounds obvious, what have I missed? edit* also get antes into mtts asap (should be no.1 priority anyway), then you can start ante cash games, which will help.
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

Yes its much easier than people think to start games. If you sit down and just take max time for each decision it should only be 4-5 hands before there is 4+ players.

However I disagree with that there should be a flat rakeback system.

Reason is this:

1. As AK47 Pointed out, lower level players get less %age rakeback. I think that it would mean lower level players would just play on these 'flat tables' wheras higher players might not.

2. I also feel it would create a divide between recreational players who would play flat tables and grinders who play normal tables.

3. Surely it is fair that a player who plays high volume at high stakes gets more %age rakeback than a recreational player who plays once every few days?

4. I think it provdes an incentive to play more. To get better rakeback. If everyone got the same people might play less tables/time and therefore decreace the traffic on the site

Lambert180 · March 2013

Firstly, it's ridiculously easy to start tables, we all know that. These players (imo) don't fear playing 3 handed half as much as they fear playing good thinking players. I'm sure they'd play 3 handed from now till the end of time if the other 2 players couldn't tie their own laces.

1. Lower level players get a smaller % RB and imo that's fair. They contribute more rake and should be rewarded accordingly.

2. This won't happen, if all the recreational players move to X table, then all the BHs will follow suit because that's easier than playing good regs which means they'll have to sacrafice C4P to play against them and maybe they'll rethink their strategy as making decent profits won't be as easy without rakeback.

3. Yes if they pay more rake.

4. Yes

offshoot · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

Firstly, it's ridiculously easy to start tables, we all know that. These players (imo) don't fear playing 3 handed half as much as they fear playing good thinking players. I'm sure they'd play 3 handed from now till the end of time if the other 2 players couldn't tie their own laces. 1. Lower level players get a smaller % RB and imo that's fair. They contribute more rake and should be rewarded accordingly. 2. This won't happen, if all the recreational players move to X table, then all the BHs will follow suit because that's easier than playing good regs which means they'll have to sacrafice C4P to play against them and maybe they'll rethink their strategy as making decent profits won't be as easy without rakeback. 3. Yes if they pay more rake. 4. Yes
Posted by Lambert180

Not really true at 200nl+. You can play HU for ages and the table might never fill.

The_Don90 · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : Not really true at 200nl+. You can play HU for ages and the table might never fill.
Posted by offshoot

Probably isnt helped with a few of your regs sat over 50 HU tables by themselves.

DeuceAK_47 · March 2013

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....!:

In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : Yes its much easier than people think to start games. If you sit down and just take max time for each decision it should only be 4-5 hands before there is 4+ players. However I disagree with that there should be a flat rakeback system. Reason is this: 1. As AK47 Pointed out, lower level players get less %age rakeback. I think that it would mean lower level players would just play on these 'flat tables' wheras higher players might not. 2. I also feel it would create a divide between recreational players who would play flat tables and grinders who play normal tables. 3. Surely it is fair that a player who plays high volume at high stakes gets more %age rakeback than a recreational player who plays once every few days? 4. I think it provdes an incentive to play more. To get better rakeback. If everyone got the same people might play less tables/time and therefore decreace the traffic on the site
Posted by sighcall

1./2. I was thinking more of getting rid of cash 4 points rather than having seperate table's , example everyone could get a flat 15% rakeback and if you get to priority you could get 25% rakeback.

3. In my example they paid the same rake that year, if they made 30,000 points every month they would make £1680 per month (33.6% rakeback)

4. It mostly gives incentive's to the winning regs not the recreational player's, limiting the amount of table's one person can play at a time and cutting bonuses would improve the state of the games which would keep the losing players at the site.

68Trebor · March 2013

Rather than getting rakeback why not just pay less rake.

LOL_RAISE · March 2013

i dont think these types of incentives will have any affect on the number of games nl200+ started, mainly because of the attitude of most regs, who wont even sit on an empty 6m table to try and start it because they might not get a favourable seat position when the table fills, instead they will just have the table open and wait until someone sits who they think they can fold their way to victory against

Be honest with us....!

Comments