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.

Timebank - yes or no?

13»

Comments

  • sikassikas Member Posts: 857
    edited September 2013
    +1 in favour of a timebank

    But in the style of 'stars zoom format where u get 15 secs but as ur session is longer and u play more hands it can go upto 90secs i think, and slowly regenerates
  • SlipwaterSlipwater Member Posts: 3,592
    edited September 2013
    I never really used the timebank on other sites, so I would say it doesn't matter to me either way.
  • SFLAYSSFLAYS Member Posts: 1
    edited September 2013
    I'm not a great player, i just play to waste the time and relax, but after a series of victories a lost everithing in a row, with a great point always on the last card my opponent get the point higher than me, it is such a shame as the entire SKy world, to start from the tv and broaband till the sky poker. 
  • SkyPeterSkyPeter Member Posts: 221
    edited September 2013
    In Response to This site is not serious at all:
    I'm not a great player, i just play to waste the time and relax, but after a series of victories a lost everithing in a row, with a great point always on the last card my opponent get the point higher than me, it is such a shame as the entire SKy world, to start from the tv and broaband till the sky poker. 
    Posted by SFLAYS
    Thanks for all the feedback, we will spend some time reviewing it all and get back to you as soon as possible with a response. Cheers.
  • jugglegeekjugglegeek Member Posts: 623
    edited September 2013
    Timebanks are a must. Sky has one of the shortest timers out there anyway, that coupled with the lag that is widely experienced by players who have less than optimal conections, makes Sky a very stressful site to play on if you are a new player. That being said, if the time bank could be used every hand by a player then that would serve the same function as increasing the regular timer.

    The best solution would be to have a 15 second timebank that increased incrementally each time it wasn't used, say 1second per hand up to a maximum of 60 seconds. For example a player would sit down and not use hit timebank for 20 hands, on hand 21 he has a tough decicion to make and he has an extra 35 seconds (in addition to his regular timebar). The timebank would then be reset to zero and the player would have to build it back up again.

    I think the serious debate needs to be whether or not the timebank is automatically activated or if the player needs to press a button to activate it. The need for a timebank should be obvious to anyone who has played on other sites and then come back to Sky.
  • sikassikas Member Posts: 857
    edited September 2013
    In Response to Re: This site is not serious at all:
    Timebanks are a must. Sky has one of the shortest timers out there anyway, that coupled with the lag that is widely experienced by players who have less than optimal conections, makes Sky a very stressful site to play on if you are a new player. That being said, if the time bank could be used every hand by a player then that would serve the same function as increasing the regular timer. The best solution would be to have a 15 second timebank that increased incrementally each time it wasn't used, say 1second per hand up to a maximum of 60 seconds. For example a player would sit down and not use hit timebank for 20 hands, on hand 21 he has a tough decicion to make and he has an extra 35 seconds (in addition to his regular timebar). The timebank would then be reset to zero and the player would have to build it back up again. I think the serious debate needs to be whether or not the timebank is automatically activated or if the player needs to press a button to activate it. The need for a timebank should be obvious to anyone who has played on other sites and then come back to Sky.
    Posted by jugglegeek


    +1
  • dabossmandabossman Member Posts: 213
    edited October 2013
    Do we have a decision on this yet?

    Or is it still the Kenny Dalglish answer "mibbies aye, mibbies naw" :)
  • churchy18churchy18 Member Posts: 1,850
    edited October 2013
    In Response to Re: Timebank - yes or no?:
    kinda undecided on this. yes you get the few times where a little extra would be handy for the really tough decisions but I cant help thinking it would become abused, more so in tourneys around the bubble. I know h4h is there but that still doesn't stop people running the timer down every hand and if a timebank was there to be used it could become quite infuriating.
    Posted by TINTIN
    +1
  • BoathouseBoathouse Member Posts: 12
    edited October 2013
    I have an alternate suggestion. Have only the timebank. No 15 seconds up front. Add 10 seconds to each players timebank at the start of each hand to a maximum bank of 1 minute. Maximum of 30 seconds automatic used on any one hand, since in practice most timebank consumption comes from disconnection. Manual option to use the rest for a connected player.
  • Clyde420Clyde420 Member Posts: 82
    edited December 2013
     I say yes to the timebank. Even just 10 seconds would be fine for me, with a reset every hour. 
    I was also reading a great idea of another player, of adding a little extra time to the time bank for acting quickly through the rest of the game. During the bubble is hand for hand anyway, so people who use their timebank during the bubble will just be wasting their own timebank pointlessly.
  • FlyingDaggFlyingDagg Member Posts: 4,146
    edited December 2013
    In Response to Re: Timebank - yes or no?:
     I say yes to the timebank. Even just 10 seconds would be fine for me, with a reset every hour.  I was also reading a great idea of another player, of adding a little extra time to the time bank for acting quickly through the rest of the game. During the bubble is hand for hand anyway, so people who use their timebank during the bubble will just be wasting their own timebank pointlessly.
    Posted by Clyde420
    BIB I think this would be quite complicated to implement. My idea would be to start a game with 10 second time bank and this is gradually increased up to a maximum of 60 seconds. If a player uses up his time bank he then has to wait 15 minutes before he gets the first 10 seconds back.

    And although it's rarely happened to me I think some sort of disconnection protection is a must.
  • rurarixrurarix Member Posts: 41
    edited December 2013
    YES FOR SURE!!!
  • wynne1938wynne1938 Member Posts: 20,555
    edited December 2013
    In Response to Re: This site is not serious at all:
    Timebanks are a must. Sky has one of the shortest timers out there anyway, that coupled with the lag that is widely experienced by players who have less than optimal conections, makes Sky a very stressful site to play on if you are a new player. That being said, if the time bank could be used every hand by a player then that would serve the same function as increasing the regular timer. The best solution would be to have a 15 second timebank that increased incrementally each time it wasn't used, say 1second per hand up to a maximum of 60 seconds. For example a player would sit down and not use hit timebank for 20 hands, on hand 21 he has a tough decicion to make and he has an extra 35 seconds (in addition to his regular timebar). The timebank would then be reset to zero and the player would have to build it back up again. I think the serious debate needs to be whether or not the timebank is automatically activated or if the player needs to press a button to activate it. The need for a timebank should be obvious to anyone who has played on other sites and then come back to Sky.
    Posted by jugglegeek
    +1
  • Clyde420Clyde420 Member Posts: 82
    edited January 2014
    In Response to Timebank - yes or no?:
    Inspired by this thread (which seems to divide people)....
    Posted by Sky_Poker

    I also think it would be best to have a button to activate the Timebank ourselves..

Sign In or Register to comment.