Don't really think about it, I just start tables to get some action going
I wouldn't just sit at 3 handed table because of c4p
Even the most inexperienced poker players who donate at tables will start to cotton on that certain people are targeting them and then stop playing. Don't understand why certain regs at higher limits make it so obvious.
At least play some pokerz at the tables versus other regs and don't sit out/in like a vulture.
It happens at other levels aswell, it's quite amusing when the ATM stands a few regs stand lolz
In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : Yeah in a way i agree. But at same time if i ply 10,000 mtts (long shot) then ive probably played just as many if not more hands than someone who gains 10x as much as my in rake back. I know thats a downside to mtt grinding. But i think its slightly unfair to complain about us geting slightly more aswell. I mean even look at the Rakeback booster promotions, both are in favour of cash players. Is there a boost of say a "double C4P mtt" or even a happy hour on HU hypers? No. So i dont think cash players - who earn more points than everyone else anyway - have any rights to moan. Just my opinions Posted by The_Don90
just like how to beat nl4 you're missing the main important points.
if you pay £10 rake, and a cash player pays £50 rake. there is 60 quid in the rake pot. Why on earth (again other than the fact it benefits you as an mtt player) should you get anywhere near an equal proportion of rakeback??
In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : you talk about making rakeback, TO MAKE IT you have to spend rake. i'm just going to reiterate, cash players pay rake on every hand, tournament players pay it once then play for potentially hours on that one payments. why should 'the books be balance' (other than you play mtts yourself) given that the money paid out is all paid from the rake paid, of which you pay alot less relatively? Posted by beaneh
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.
In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : just like how to beat nl4 you're missing the main important points. if you pay £10 rake, and a cash player pays £50 rake. there is 60 quid in the rake pot. Why on earth (again other than the fact it benefits you as an mtt player) should you get anywhere near an equal proportion of rakeback?? Posted by beaneh
I have replied to your previous responce.
And a prime example on why i no longer play cash unless its for fun.
As has been said though, the cash promotions give you 50% bonus so it takes the C4P from 6 points per £1 to 9 points per £1, So for a very small portion of the day we get 10% less, the rest of the day we get 40% less.
Rakeback isn't paid on number of hands, it's on rake paid. It's swings and roundabouts with all formats. It's like a cash player saying it's not fair, I can't sit down pay £5 and leave with £500 a couple of hours later.
Tbf, rakeback is a bonus and as Doh has been telling me for years.... profit /> C4P
In Response to Re: Be honest with us....! : If im honest i feel that MTT players cant make priority. Posted by The_Don90
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.
Ill respond to both in this post cba to quote now.
Does that mean that as an mtt player i shouldnt have priority? Or i shouldnt have right to earn priority.
Its not down to the number and size of tournaments Lambert, Sky runs more tournaments than far bigger sites.
I doupt i could earn priority anyways i dont play enough, but players who play more than me probably could given a route into it from MTTs.
I dont know all the priority perks as honestly its not worth me looking, as beaneh says i cant beat nl4 so playing cash for the C4P would be a losing play long term for me. However i would still like the option to be able to earn priority.
I dont know how cash works at the level your at if im honest beaneh, although i know what you mean about the endless players who basically fold everything bar aces pre and sets post flop and earn just as many C4P as someone who is happy to play for the love of the game.
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
This is the thing we are interested in. People do generally prefer to wait for a seat on a full table rather than starting one. Often there are queues on many tables (and not just because they are waiting for a 'fish') at a level and people would rather wait it seems.
Early bird is designed to help this and to help encourage more games to start, so that when other people come to the site, they see games starting, with seats spare... ...and so on.
If you play soley MTTs and can't earn 10,000 points, then you shuoldn't have the right no. It's like saying shouldn't a 4NL player have the right to earn it, they all have the ability but less rake per game/hand = you need to play more hands/games.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Comments
I wouldn't just sit at 3 handed table because of c4p
Even the most inexperienced poker players who donate at tables will start to cotton on that certain people are targeting them and then stop playing. Don't understand why certain regs at higher limits make it so obvious.
At least play some pokerz at the tables versus other regs and don't sit out/in like a vulture.
It happens at other levels aswell, it's quite amusing when the ATM stands a few regs stand lolz
Do love it though when the ATM gets lucky
Rakeback isn't paid on number of hands, it's on rake paid. It's swings and roundabouts with all formats. It's like a cash player saying it's not fair, I can't sit down pay £5 and leave with £500 a couple of hours later.
Tbf, rakeback is a bonus and as Doh has been telling me for years.... profit /> C4P
1) The nature of the beast with MTTs.
2) down to the number and size of tournies Sky can facilitate
Early bird is designed to help this and to help encourage more games to start, so that when other people come to the site, they see games starting, with seats spare... ...and so on.
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.
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.
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."