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.
SKY POKER HAS REALLY GONE DOWNHILL - JOKE OF A SITE
dominon105
Member Posts: 26
I am really sorry to say that sky poker has gone completely downhill since they have brought in the new software.. The whole playing this fun has gone out of the window. People say you should play sky poker for fun.. What they should really say is if you want BS then play on this new software.. Because this new software keep rewarding bad players all the time.. It does not reward the people that put in the hours and hours.. The regulars at all anymore.. Maybe if you have £10,000 in your bankroll, but if you got less that £50 in your bankroll the software does not reckonise you at all..
There is no way on this site you can now play with skill you won't get rewarded at all..
There is no way on this site you can now play with skill you won't get rewarded at all..
Comments
And it's not a question of loosing your money... It's how you loose your money that is in question here...
By bad players winning all the time.. lol... How do I show a hand in here?? I moved all in.. Person never had the odds to call, but did anyway with king, 5.. And of course hits the 5.. That's just one of many.. The way it's going at the moment I might as well just close my account down....
What does this even mean?
So everyone that has beaten you in a pot has over £500 in their account?
You think if you put in the hours you are the one who should put bad beats on people?
This really is one of the most nonsensical posts I have read and believe me I read many on here.
Why dont you save up £500, deposit it on here and if your theory is correct you can not lose. In a few weeks you will be able to withdraw the £500 , still have £500 in your account and you will never lose again.
Wow I might have come up with something here. Dont tell anyone else though OK?
By new year's day (2013) - i had established a very significant sample of data which show a higher bad beat scenario than would be statsitcially viable. The difference was significant enough that winning with the sklansky group 1 cards when dealt could be considered equal to losing with the same cards. This can be considered an outlier in correlation terms.
In dealt hole cards, sky dealt so significantly lower valued cards and combinations of cards that their RNG could be questioned (over those sample data).
However, the situation suddenly changed on new year's day when i made the mistake of commenting on the flaws in the RNG algorithm during a tournament in the chat box to another player. Within 3 hands, and for the next 250 hands my data showed a complete reversal with a very very high average dealt hole card value and 100% hit on the board (even with group 2 cards). That's a 100% hit in 250 hands where every hand hit a match on the board. Also - there were zero bad beats for any of my hands. In the last hand of the tournament in heads up, my opponent's A high hand was bad beat by my K high hand.
I also played cash tables and heads up cash tables and had exactly the same high value dealt hole cards and zero bad beats. Almost as if a switch had been flicked.
I'm testing the data because I believe the algorithm they are using has a manual intervention capability or a skew to certain types of play/player.
I write algorithms for a living and I like to query the integrity of other algorithms. If a poker site like sky which is geared to maximum profit (7.5% and 10% rake which is actually very high comparatively) wants to make sure the algorithm contributes significantly to the profit them:
>> It must be close to random but it must favour the reckless play because this gets more money in the rake.
>> It must punish tight play and encourage loose play by restricting the hole card value to tight players thereby forcing them to be more aggressive with lower value cards.
>> It must have a high bad beat ratio because this encourages more inexperienced players to go all in with lesser cards thereby generating more rake, and kills good tight players because they don't contribute enough t
Does the sky poker algorithm do any of that? Not sure yet... If you were the boss of that poker site, and your salary was directly correlated to the profitability of the business - would you skew it? Probably not. Would anyone?
As i type - i just got bad beat QQ v 99 - knocked out to a loose player in the final stages of a bounty hunter. Come on sky, keep those bad beats coming because i feel a day of reckoning is coming...
Like I said, there is a big lovely world out there when you close your laptop down and open your eyes.
Si pies or should I say Kadz? lol
Here's a review off poker scout from January 2013 see if you can spot the similarities:
"I've been analysing sky for more than 10,000 hands (MMT) and over 7,000 hands (cash games) to establish whether the dealt hole cards and bad beats are correlated with the accepted statistics of both random draw (hole cards) and likely win odds for sklansky group 1 dealt hole cards versus actual wins with group 1 cards (bad beats) on the site.
By new year's day (2013) - i had established a very significant sample of data which show a higher bad beat scenario than would be statsitcially viable. The difference was significant enough that winning with the sklansky group 1 cards when dealt could be considered equal to losing with the same cards. This can be considered an outlier in correlation terms.
In dealt hole cards, sky dealt so significantly lower valued cards and combinations of cards that their RNG could be questioned (over those sample data).
However, the situation suddenly changed on new year's day when i made the mistake of commenting on the flaws in the RNG algorithm during a tournament in the chat box to another player. Within 3 hands, and for the next 250 hands my data showed a complete reversal with a very very high average dealt hole card value and 100% hit on the board (even with group 2 cards). That's a 100% hit in 250 hands where every hand hit a match on the board. Also - there were zero bad beats for any of my hands. In the last hand of the tournament in heads up, my opponent's A high hand was bad beat by my K high hand.
It's almost like it's word for word the same......oh wait it is! Plagarise much do you?!
http://www.pokerscout.com/AllReviews.aspx?id=608