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
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
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!
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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%)
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Comments
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
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
Oh, and sign Beaneh up to the management of the site. He/she speaks more sense than the rest of us put together.
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.
+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.
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