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? Posted by aussie09
Maybe, & in a way, yes.
Normally, poker keeps players of different ability apart naturally.
£5 - £10 cash players don't play 5p-10p cash, & 5p-10p cash players don't play £5-£10, so never the twain meets, whatever twain means.
But the Satellite Tree on Sky Poker, & in fact every site that I am aware of, means micro-limit players get to mix it with the Big Boys in the Satellite Finals.
Football & cricket keeps different abilities apart with Leagues. Golf does it by handicapping. Poker does it by buy-in levels. But Satellites confuse that logic, & all players of all abilities get to play the same Final, & hopefully, Target Event.
The debate is good, but we can never expect the extreme ends of the spectrum to agree, views are naturally polarised.
Personally, I've always flown the flag for the smaller players, & spent a good deal of my time in poker trying to do my little bit to level the playing field. (APAT etc). But I genuinely think the current model is fine, & if it were artificially skewed to exclude some or include others, the wheels would fall off. I don't expect everyone to agree with me though.
isn't it really all about wanting rules that exclude better players yet retain weaker ones? Posted by aussie09
WOW....taking it to the next level. I strongly disagree with your wording there.
I am sure all the players who get in for a few quid/micro amounts do so by playing a few sats and grinding away to win their seat. Saying it is ok for the 'better players' to keep buying in direct (because they can afford it) is just saying money talks. I hate that notion.
The good news stories in these things are them 'weaker' players who get in for cheap and cash big. You dont always hear 'this player' paid £1800 for his £1000 entry....but you do hear 'this player' got in for a quid etc
Excuse the naivety, I don't play these sats so it doesn't affect me and don't have strong opinions one way or the other.
But if a decent number of the qualifiers through this route (across all sites running qualifiers for this event) opt to take the money instead, does that have a detrimental effect on the tournament itself?
Ie if it reduces the eventual number of runners does that mean the tournament organisers potentially have to cover overlay to meet the £500k guarantee, or does the rake from all the satellite entries protect against this?
And if there is a smaller field for the event, even if the rake covers the overlay, does that have any negatives for the future running of the tournament (ie less positive publicity, worse experience for the players etc?)
Excuse the naivety, I don't play these sats so it doesn't affect me and don't have strong opinions one way or the other. But if a decent number of the qualifiers through this route (across all sites running qualifiers for this event) opt to take the money instead, does that have a detrimental effect on the tournament itself? Ie if it reduces the eventual number of runners does that mean the tournament organisers potentially have to cover overlay to meet the £500k guarantee, or does the rake from all the satellite entries protect against this? And if there is a smaller field for the event, even if the rake covers the overlay, does that have any negatives for the future running of the tournament (ie less positive publicity, worse experience for the players etc?) Posted by shakinaces
THIS.
I am sure Sky Poker/DTD will make the guarantee, but for every seat not given....one more seat needs to be filled.
In Response to Re: Wee bit flawed... : I do understand the other side or the argument, it is however flawed logic to assume sky would put on a guarantee and have overlay and Aussie has shown that the 2nd seat players entering are providing more seats than they take. However other factors need to be considered to properly work out what the state of play would be if 2nd seat players couldn't play. 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. Posted by MattBates
All fair comment Matt. I am just stalling getting my second seat until they open up the all in sats.
Excuse the naivety, I don't play these sats so it doesn't affect me and don't have strong opinions one way or the other. But if a decent number of the qualifiers through this route (across all sites running qualifiers for this event) opt to take the money instead, does that have a detrimental effect on the tournament itself? Ie if it reduces the eventual number of runners does that mean the tournament organisers potentially have to cover overlay to meet the £500k guarantee, or does the rake from all the satellite entries protect against this? And if there is a smaller field for the event, even if the rake covers the overlay, does that have any negatives for the future running of the tournament (ie less positive publicity, worse experience for the players etc?) Posted by shakinaces
Well articulated point shakin.
The trouble is that we don't know the net effect (Eg would there be more qualifiers without 2nd seat players) of players taking cash (We can estimate this but it can only be considered an estimate based on my points in my last post).
Based on Aussie's stats the 2nd seat players add to the prizepool so there isn't a negative effect on the number winning seats so this does reduce the argument.
Also, the tournament is re entry so some players will be winning seats (taking the cash) to then be able to re enter.
Excuse the naivety, I don't play these sats so it doesn't affect me and don't have strong opinions one way or the other. But if a decent number of the qualifiers through this route (across all sites running qualifiers for this event) opt to take the money instead, does that have a detrimental effect on the tournament itself? Ie if it reduces the eventual number of runners does that mean the tournament organisers potentially have to cover overlay to meet the £500k guarantee, or does the rake from all the satellite entries protect against this? And if there is a smaller field for the event, even if the rake covers the overlay, does that have any negatives for the future running of the tournament (ie less positive publicity, worse experience for the players etc?) Posted by shakinaces
Hi Shaky,
If that were the case, then I'm sure it would be addressed. It is not.
Sky Poker have a target number of qualifiers. They will exceed that number, by some margin.
Every Monday morning, we look at the numbers to date, both internally, & with our Partners @ DTD.
I also send a short report to DTD, & they send their version back, explaining where we are with numbers & projections.
As of today, it is already guaranteed that the Event will have in excess of 420 runners. This EXCLUDES "walk-ins" & Re-entries from Days 1a & 1b. The Guarantee requires 500 seats. I estimate it will get north of 600.
So no, there is no concern as to overall numbers. And that is because both Partners put a great deal of effort & thought into how to qualify that number of players, one way & another, & because the Players have supported the Satellites.
Haven't read all the latest here yet as I am pre first cuppa of the day and therefore 75% zombie at present.
However I know on the show last night it was referenced several times I already had a seat, which is all true. While I locked up the equivalent of 3 or 4 seats early you'll be pleased to hear I have donated over a grand back to the community this last month in these sats. Buy ins which have no doubt helped provide additional seats to a variety of £10 satty and small bankrolled qualifiers get their seat. You are welcome.
Thanks for all the posts, I have played in many mains mixing it with the top players, makes this site better and different to others, always one or two names in at the money end.And can only learn from this.
I think I was trying to say, give us one or two chances for non seat holders to battle it out, same sat system 1 in 5 through to final. Knowing all winners are through to Nottingham. Everybody who gets there, deserves to be there. Also shows outwith these sats, a Sunday brings out all the tops players.
Comments
Normally, poker keeps players of different ability apart naturally.
£5 - £10 cash players don't play 5p-10p cash, & 5p-10p cash players don't play £5-£10, so never the twain meets, whatever twain means.
But the Satellite Tree on Sky Poker, & in fact every site that I am aware of, means micro-limit players get to mix it with the Big Boys in the Satellite Finals.
Football & cricket keeps different abilities apart with Leagues. Golf does it by handicapping. Poker does it by buy-in levels. But Satellites confuse that logic, & all players of all abilities get to play the same Final, & hopefully, Target Event.
The debate is good, but we can never expect the extreme ends of the spectrum to agree, views are naturally polarised.
Personally, I've always flown the flag for the smaller players, & spent a good deal of my time in poker trying to do my little bit to level the playing field. (APAT etc). But I genuinely think the current model is fine, & if it were artificially skewed to exclude some or include others, the wheels would fall off. I don't expect everyone to agree with me though.
But if a decent number of the qualifiers through this route (across all sites running qualifiers for this event) opt to take the money instead, does that have a detrimental effect on the tournament itself?
Ie if it reduces the eventual number of runners does that mean the tournament organisers potentially have to cover overlay to meet the £500k guarantee, or does the rake from all the satellite entries protect against this?
And if there is a smaller field for the event, even if the rake covers the overlay, does that have any negatives for the future running of the tournament (ie less positive publicity, worse experience for the players etc?)
The trouble is that we don't know the net effect (Eg would there be more qualifiers without 2nd seat players) of players taking cash (We can estimate this but it can only be considered an estimate based on my points in my last post).
Based on Aussie's stats the 2nd seat players add to the prizepool so there isn't a negative effect on the number winning seats so this does reduce the argument.
Also, the tournament is re entry so some players will be winning seats (taking the cash) to then be able to re enter.
If that were the case, then I'm sure it would be addressed. It is not.
Sky Poker have a target number of qualifiers. They will exceed that number, by some margin.
Every Monday morning, we look at the numbers to date, both internally, & with our Partners @ DTD.
I also send a short report to DTD, & they send their version back, explaining where we are with numbers & projections.
As of today, it is already guaranteed that the Event will have in excess of 420 runners. This EXCLUDES "walk-ins" & Re-entries from Days 1a & 1b. The Guarantee requires 500 seats. I estimate it will get north of 600.
So no, there is no concern as to overall numbers. And that is because both Partners put a great deal of effort & thought into how to qualify that number of players, one way & another, & because the Players have supported the Satellites.
However I know on the show last night it was referenced several times I already had a seat, which is all true. While I locked up the equivalent of 3 or 4 seats early you'll be pleased to hear I have donated over a grand back to the community this last month in these sats. Buy ins which have no doubt helped provide additional seats to a variety of £10 satty and small bankrolled qualifiers get their seat. You are welcome.
As long as this site and these sort of events continue to be busy and successful then happy days, good for poker!
In the new new news, poker players like wining money.