NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?

devonfish5

Another site I play on have introduced at their micro level, a max 50 bb buy-in on ALL their 1c/2c tables.

so in effect the maximum buy-in went from $2 per table down to $1 per table overnight.

I didn't like this introduction to begin with but now think it's great, & it is also a level playing field to any player wishing to invest only 50 bb's as opposed to the 100 bb's that many/most players arguably choose to play with.

so, my question,  could this be introduced here at Sky poker at the nl4 level?

maybe as a trial period at first on some tables anyway, & see how it goes.

hhyftrftdr

In Response to NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

Another site I play on have introduced at their micro level, a max 50 bb buy-in on ALL their 1c/2c tables. so in effect the maximum buy-in went from $2 per table down to $1 per table overnight. I didn't like this introduction to begin with but now think it's great, & it is a level playing field to any player wishing to invest only 50 bb's as opposed to the 100 bb's that many/most players arguably choose to play with. so, my question,   could this be introduced here at Sky poker at the nl4 level? maybe as a trial period at first on some tables anyway, & see how it goes.
Posted by devonfish5

4nl is already a level playing field. Every player gets 2 cards and sits down with X amount of money they are happy to spin up/lose. If people only wanna sit down with 50bb then they can do that.

devonfish5

& it is a level playing field to any player wishing to invest only 50 bb's as opposed to the 100 bb's that many/most players arguably choose to play with

hhyftrftdr

Dev, if players wanna sit down with 50bb instead of 100bb then they can fill their boots. Say if you had a designated 4nl table where the max sit down is £2....how would you combat it if the people already sat down had spun their stacks up to £5+?

Anyone playing cash should look to sit with the maximum anyway where possible.

Sky would be better off introducing 1p/2p tables than implementing this IMO. Players already have the option to sit down with as little as 20bb if they so wish.

devonfish5

Sky used to have 1p/2p tables & 25p dym tables.

you would combat that by not sitting at those tables & choose one where everyone had the 50 bb's or there about.

yes, players do have the option of sitting down with 20 bb's or 50 or 100 or whatever in between.

i think a 50 bb max table would benefit new players for starters & anyone with a small bankroll too, where if they were sitting down against players with the same size starting stack of £2 rather than against players with £4 where they might feel intimidated for one, then it would make it a fair level playing field for those said players.

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

Sky used to have 1p/2p tables & 25p dym tables. you would combat that by not sitting at those tables & choose one where everyone had the 50 bb's or there about. yes, players do have the option of sitting down with 20 bb's or 50 or 100 or whatever in between. i think a 50 bb max table would benefit new players for starters & anyone with a small bankroll too, where if they were sitting down against players with the same size starting stack of £2 rather than against players with £4 where they might feel intimidated for one, then it would make it a fair level playing field for those said players.
Posted by devonfish5

I've already made the point above, but shall reiterate. Say Sky designate 2 tables to this £2 max buy in, and both tables contain players who have been there a while and spun their 2 quid up to £5+.....then what? Sit at a normal 4nl table? Do something else maybe and sack off the poker?

It already is a level playing field; every player gets 2 cards and the button every orbit, regardless of if they sit with 20bb, 50bb or 100bb.

If anything, only being able to sit down with a maximum 50bb would encourage gambling (less playing down the streets and more feeling obliged to go with your hand if only playing 50bb) and thus new/smaller bankrolled players might do their funds much quicker than a standard table.

It's the rake at the lowest level that wants looking at.

jordz16

What about if there were tables where if you ever went over your starting stack then the money went into your account so you never went over the 100bbs? (or 50) would that have any advantages/disadvantages? just throwing that out there

LARSON7

Hey Dev,

I don't imagine Sky would be to keen they didn't even consider introducing master cash 4nl tables when it was suggested 1 year ago.

People can still buy in for 50bb or less, which many do, so don't know if there would be much demand for a 50bb maximum table/s.

devonfish5

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : I've already made the point above, but shall reiterate. Say Sky designate 2 tables to this £2 max buy in, and both tables contain players who have been there a while and spun their 2 quid up to £5+.....then what? Sit at a normal 4nl table? Do something else maybe and sack off the poker? It already is a level playing field; every player gets 2 cards and the button every orbit, regardless of if they sit with 20bb, 50bb or 100bb. If anything, only being able to sit down with a maximum 50bb would encourage gambling (less playing down the streets and more feeling obliged to go with your hand if only playing 50bb) and thus new/smaller bankrolled players might do their funds much quicker than a standard table. It's the rake at the lowest level that wants looking at.
Posted by hhyftrftdr

the site i am with have 50bb buy-ins on ALL THEIR TABLES & have kept it so for some time, not sure of dates but it's certainly well over 6 months now, if not 12 , so they must see some point behind it.

i think you are only seeing this from YOUR POINT OF VIEW hhy, & not looking at the possible benefits to other players, should this ever be brought in by Sky poker, which I doubt will ever happen anyway., as they are pretty much way behind the competition in most areas, certainly poker wise anyway, imo.

having played on these 50bb buy-in tables i can at least give my thoughts & opinions as to why they should/could be tested here.

I have not posted this up to fall out with anyone certainly not with you.

i don't see how sitting with a  50 bb buy-in would mean players would lose their money quicker.

anyway that's your opinion & you have no evidence to back that up.

I have been playing at these 50bb buy-in tables for some time now & I believe they are a great improvement for all players at the 'micro level.

I don't class losing £4 on possibly the flip of a coin as 'micro level' either. & i'm sure there must be others who feel the same.

Losing $1 yes (that's around 66p in our money here btw, for those that might not know).

yes, the rake is an issue too, & that needs looking at for sure, but again I feel it won't. 

anyway, I've asked the question, what happens or more to the point, what doesn't happen, is the more relevent question I guess.

devonfish5

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

What about if there were tables where if you ever went over your starting stack then the money went into your account so you never went over the 100bbs? (or 50) would that have any advantages/disadvantages? just throwing that out there
Posted by jordz16

Funny jordz, I had just thought of that very same thing myself...

which WOULD ensure the £5 -£6 table scenario would never be an issue here.

devonfish5

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

Hey Dev, I don't imagine Sky would be to keen they didn't even consider introducing master cash 4nl tables when it was suggested 1 year ago. People can still buy in for 50bb or less, which many do, so don't know if there would be much demand for a 50bb maximum table/s.
Posted by LARSON7

I agree mate...

but on said other site, there was no discusion, etc, it just happened overnight, ALL 1c/2c TABLES BECAME 50BB BUY-INS,

& players had to adjust their games accordingly.

I think it would be a great addition to this site for most low playing 'micro' cash players, new & old alike, hence my question/suggestion.

FCHD

Just because it happened on another site is not necessarily a good reason for it to happen here.  On the rare occasions I play cash I like to short stack, but I can't see Sky implementing this I'm afraid.

Although, I don't see why there isn't a "capped" cash table at the 2p/4p level.

devonfish5

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

Just because it happened on another site is not necessarily a good reason for it to happen here.  On the rare occasions I play cash I like to short stack, but I can't see Sky implementing this I'm afraid. Although, I don't see why there isn't a "capped" cash table at the 2p/4p level.
Posted by FCHD

Again i agree, but isn't it at the very least worth a try?

if a site has continued with it for 6-12 months as i have quoted, there must be some reasoning for staying with it.

DOHHHHHHH

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

Just because it happened on another site is not necessarily a good reason for it to happen here.  On the rare occasions I play cash I like to short stack, but I can't see Sky implementing this I'm afraid. Although, I don't see why there isn't a "capped" cash table at the 2p/4p level.
Posted by FCHD

Because once the rake is taken from a capped pot at 2p/4p there would be nothing left to win. 

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : the site i am with have 50bb buy-ins on ALL THEIR TABLES & have kept it so for some time, not sure of dates but it's certainly well over 6 months now, if not 12 , so they must see some point behind it. i think you are only seeing this from YOUR POINT OF VIEW hhy, & not looking at the possible benefits to other players, should this ever be brought in by Sky poker, which I doubt will ever happen anyway., as they are pretty much way behind the competition in most areas, certainly poker wise anyway, imo. having played on these 50bb buy-in tables i can at least give my thoughts & opinions as to why they should/could be tested here. I have not posted this up to fall out with anyone certainly not with you. i don't see how sitting with a  50 bb buy-in would mean players would lose their money quicker. anyway that's your opinion & you have no evidence to back that up. I have been playing at these 50bb buy-in tables for some time now & I believe they are a great improvement for all players at the 'micro level. I don't class losing £4 on possibly the flip of a coin as 'micro level' either. & i'm sure there must be others who feel the same. Losing $1 yes (that's around 66p in our money here btw, for those that might not know). yes, the rake is an issue too, & that needs looking at for sure, but again I feel it won't.  anyway, I've asked the question, what happens or more to the point, what doesn't happen, is the more relevent question I guess.
Posted by devonfish5

Not sure where to begin with this....

What are the benefits for the players? Bearing in mind people can already sit down with as little as 80p at a 4nl table?

I stated why I thought it could mean some players lose their funds much quicker.

I'm seeing this from my point of view but you're not? 

I'd hazard a guess there would be much more flipping for stacks at just 50bb deep than 100bb deep or more.

-----------------------------------------------------------

If people want to sit down with 50bb or less, they already can.

And what you going on about ''falling out'' for? It's a forum, a place to debate. I don't agree with your OP, just like I didn't agree with the KK thing, but there is no need to be precious about things.

Jordz concept is interesting, though I'll be six feet under before the Sky software could handle it

LARSON7

Rake levels: 5p/10p and below

Number of Players	Maximum Rake % per Pot	Maximum Rake per Pot
2	7.5% of the pot*	£0.70
3+	7.5% of the pot*	£1.40

On a £1 pot they are taking 7p/8p.

£4 total pot = 30p, at a 50bb table would be extremely difficult (impossible??) to make a profit.

It may well be different on ps, or other sites, where the rake wasn't as massive at the micro levels.

devonfish5

I won't stoop to your level hhy...

of course you are always right & i'm always wrong. end of.

TeddyBloat

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

Rake levels: 5p/10p and below  Number of Players   Maximum Rake % per Pot   Maximum Rake per Pot  2  7.5% of the pot*  £0.70  3+  7.5% of the pot*  £1.40 On a £1 pot they are taking 7p/8p. £4 total pot = 30p, at a 50bb table would be extremely difficult (impossible??) to make a profit. It may well be different on ps, or other sites, where the rake wasn't as massive at the micro levels.
Posted by LARSON7

THIS.

please dont give sky any more ideas / incentive to scr3w micro-stakes players over: they are pretty good at doing that all by themselves.

if you want to improve the playing experience of micro-stakes players [and thereby improve liquidity across all levels] then lobby HARD for them to lower the rake. micro / recreationals have NO idea how the rake affects their winrate and how much sky's extortionate rake makes beating the game near impossible.

see gary laud's diary for evidence of that.

devonfish5

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

Rake levels: 5p/10p and below  Number of Players   Maximum Rake % per Pot   Maximum Rake per Pot  2  7.5% of the pot*  £0.70  3+  7.5% of the pot*  £1.40 On a £1 pot they are taking 7p/8p. £4 total pot = 30p, at a 50bb table would be extremely difficult (impossible??) to make a profit. It may well be different on ps, or other sites, where the rake wasn't as massive at the micro levels.
Posted by LARSON7

then y cant sky drop their rake, so as to fall in line with other sites?

devonfish5

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in?:

In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : THIS. please dont give sky any more ideas / incentive to scr3w micro-stakes players over: they are pretty good at doing that all by themselves. if you want to improve the playing experience of micro-stakes players [and thereby improve liquidity across all levels] then lobby HARD for them to lower the rake. micro / recreationals have NO idea how the rake affects their winrate and how much sky's extortionate rake makes beating the game near impossible. see gary laud's diary for evidence of that.
Posted by TeddyBloat

what about GaryQQQ's diary...

kind of counters that point, imo.

TeddyBloat

that devon is the question.

have they ever engaged with the players on this issue?

it has been raised on here so many times...