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.
Wee bit flawed...
poncake
Member Posts: 61
Not a dig at the guys who take advantage of a flawed system. If I was a better player and could afford to, I would probably do the same. The UKPC entry tournys have been brought up before, the big hitters geting cash outs on a weekly basis is reducing the number of players fed through to Nottingham, looking at tonights quarters, semi and final, the same players who have already their seats booked will take a fair bit of the seats tonight. (cash)
I do not even enter because of this, if these guys had seats locked up and no cash out instead,they would not be entering weekly, it would give the not so good players a better oppertunity (maybe). But Sky Poker get the reg fee no matter what, so more the merrier.
Not many final tables in tournys offer the prospect of 5 or 6 top equal payouts, no sliding scale as in MTT, so can see attraction to top players.
Comments
Hi poncake,
The point you make has been made by many players before, & is not without merit.
However, for balance, it is worth considering that without the "big hitters", the liquidity in these Super Sats would be much reduced, as would the number of Guaranteed Seats.
I think it's pretty much a swings & roundabouts thing. Ban those guys from playing these things, & there'd be fewer Guaranteed Seats on offer.
PS - I'm not saying it is right or wrong, or that I agree or disagree with it, I'm simply adding an important fact which had not been mentioned, to give better balance to the debate.
to help and to add some data to this issue....
if once a player had qualified they were not allowed to try a second time.
there would have been 51 fewer entrants into sunday's semi-finals.
of these, there were 10 winners of a second place.
a rule would have been harmful to all players seeking to qualify.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, few things are. But on balance, for everyone, the current system benefits more people than it hinders.
Sadly, nothing in life, or Online Poker, is as fair as we'd like it to be.
I'm not sure you would.
I don't have that as gospel, I've never asked the question of the Suits, but it seems self-evident to me, & very much so.
Overlay would have lasted about a week, then the number of Guaranteed Seats reduced.
As it happens, I don't recall a single week where there has been overlay.
The equation is dynamic, & the number of Guaranteed Seats is micro-managed. Miss the Guarantee too often, they'd snap reduce the number, & quite right too.
The matter has been debated countless times, & will carry on doing so.
People's views are strictly polarised, based on where they sit in the equation. Which is perfectly natural, & to be expected.
I do think the majority are bright enough to see both sides though.
The one thing I would chuck into the debate is: I see what poncake is saying, and on the face of it, it doesn't seem fair. however, If you feel aggrieved that you are playing a satellite where a lot of regs have already won seats. IF they weren't allowed to play when they already had a seat locked up and sky had to run less satellites then you would have to face these regs anyway in order to win a seat.
I don't know what the solution is, and I agree it doesn't seem entirely "right" however tbh I would just leave it the way it is.
The Business chooses what it thinks is right (based on a better undersatanding of the numbers, which they see but we don't), & the players choose whether to engage or not.
You can cut this cake any number of ways, but never enough ways to please everyone.
With over a month to go, Sky Poker qualifiers now total 83. Far larger sites would be chuffed to bits with such a take up, & so early.
why confine thinking on multiple attempts to those who play and win? why not apply the same thinking to those who play and lose?
shouldn't you argue equally strongly and stop everyone entering a second time, whether or not they won or lost on their first attempt. but of course this would be counterproductive and complete nonsense.
isn't it really all about wanting rules that exclude better players yet retain weaker ones?
How many players are put off playing the sats at the moment as these "big hitters" are playing and they feel they have less chance of winning a seat against these players?
How many people would be put off playing if there was only say 3 or 4 seats (guess at how many would be guaranteed without the 2nd seat players) guaranteed as opposed to 5?
I am sure there are other factors to consider but those couple came to mind.
Finally, there is a lot of literature available online on sat strategy so people could spend some time improving their sat play to improve their chances of getting a seat.