In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : Don't think there has been a single 'troll' on this thread. Depends on what you deem a troll I suppose. Hilarious as always Brian Posted by hhyftrftdr
In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : All this tension in the air between us, mate. Why don't we just rent a room and be done with it? Posted by Slipwater
You can't afford my tastes.
Anyway, lets not derail, might get accused of being a troll and all that.
first up, kudos for 'engaging' and also for tempering the debate . i'll try to steer clear of emotive language, innit sky will of course charge as much as people are willing to pay. what i'm questioning is whether that is good for the long-term health of the games at the micro-stakes level [and the levels above actually]. in particular the games that are in the main unbeatable due to rake [sub £1 hyper HUSNG and DYMs all count]. if no-one is winning then the money is leaving the player pool. if people are deposting regularly then happy days for sky i guess. i'm not an economist or privvy to sky's business plan so i could be WAY off base, of course. you say that most recreationals dont have a win rate and play for enjoyment. i'm saying that it is impossible to have a win-rate in those games. poker is a form of gambling [with a skill element]. gambling games that offer a chance to 'spin up' or go on a mini-heater are surely more enjoyable? at the moment that would be difficult for even the best players on the site to achieve at those levels. see [editing name, not fair to bring his name up all the time]'s first diary for example. he felt fustrated and has quit playing numerous times. if he took his winrate to the level above he would have been a break even player. he is significantly better than the players in his games yet hemorrhaged money due to playing in unbeatable games. we all know just what a psychologically intense game poker is when you cant seem to win. these games are unbeatble. as the 'entry level' games, i'm not sure that they are a great introduction to poker for the peeps who might deposit a tenner to try this wonderful game of ours. if traffic and deposits are increasing at the micros, then fair enough: if sky keep offering unbeatable games they will clean up. just wondering if allowing players at the bottom to win and build a bank-roll would increase the liquidity of games [not just at the bottom, but throughout the site], would increase the enjoyement of the player-pool [winnning feels nicer than losing] and would be better for the long-term health of the site and business. i'm very pro sky and recommend the site to people all the time. the lobbies are clean and well set up, cashouts instant, and the community is fantastic. i do feel that microstakes players, however, are getting a bad deal. that they arent aware of that and are willing to play games that they dont know are unbeatable doesnt, for me at least, change that fact. again, i'm not an economist or in any way intersted in business models etc, but thats how things appear to my admittedly naive eyes. thanks. Posted by TeddyBloat
Tremendous post Teddy, very constructive, I'll leave replying to that one until last. I'm the same with food, leave the potatoes until last because I adore them.
Good afternoon Tikay Thanks for getting back to me on that other PLO thread by the way (going for the win versus nit laddering), still struggling a bit with it, did Google ICM and even though I maybe didn't understand all of it I feel like going through the thought process of trying to work it out helped me a lot. I tend to think for a really long time about the smallest of little things so it takes me a while to put things into words some times. I appreciated you making the effort to reply though and was glad to hear that things were generally going well. PS - You're 2 -1 up in HiLo DYMs we've played together I think, I'll pull it back though. Posted by seanallen
In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : Maybe, but you could say the same about 5p/10p or any other level where there are standard 100BB and Mastercash 200BB tables. The other reason that there was a call for at least one 2p/4p Mastercash table was that it would then have a "televised" icon, so maybe a hand could be featured in Mastercash hour on TV every now and then, and that hands from that table could be sent into the live shows for Poker Clinic etc. I find it ironic that the stakes where the players probably need the most help and would most welcome the odd one-off spot of having a hand on TV, is the very level where this is denied them. Posted by FCHD
Hi barnacle,
I don't actually know why there are no MasterCash Tables @ 2p-4p, & I wish there were, but I suppose I could guess the reason.
As to televising them, yes, it'd be nice, of course it would, though I'm not convinced that showing too much 2p-4p Cash Action is the most cost-efficient way forward for a TV Channel that needs to attract viewers & new sign-ups. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world, & there will always be more interest in the "bigger" games.
In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : Hey Tikay! Rightly or wrongly sometimes it feels people make all manner of positive suggestions for the site which appear to fall on deaf ears. I agree 100% with Teddybloat's post. Anything that can be done to promote the game should be encouraged. In the short term charging the higher % rake will make Sky the most money. As with Teddy, i'm not an economist, but I would argue that reducing rake (at the micros) would be more beneficial long term and result in longer term profits. A bit like Walmart's stack them high sell them cheap. If the games were "beatable" then it could only help the poker food chain. 7.5% at 4/10nl is massive imo. These games are still beatable (at cash) however it is very difficult for anyone to move up from these levels given the constraint of rake. Short term Sky might lose a bit of money reducing rake at micros but for the longevity of the game and the site I feel it could only be a boon. The rake at DYM's 15% plus at micros and 10% on 55p hypers, it would seem safe to say these games are pretty much unbeatable for micro players. They keep saying that online poker is in decline. I think Tikay you have said in the past Sky has been bucking this trend which is brilliant. But I passionately believe anything that a site can do to encourage / promote the game should be supported. A big thing Sky could do in this regard is offer better terms for micro players in relation to rake, which would have a follow on higher up the chain. Posted by LARSON7
Morning Larson bloke.
Where do you get this idea from?....
"....Rightly or wrongly sometimes it feels people make all manner of positive suggestions for the site which appear to fall on deaf ears....."
Just because a suggestion is not implemented, does not mean it "falls on deaf ears". Many suggestions make no sense, or are impractical. That's not ignoring them. EVERY suggestion with any practical merit is considered. Bear in mind, most come from poker players who have no knowledge of running a poker site, or business practice generally.
"....Anything that can be done to promote the game should be encouraged....."
Do you not think Sky Poker help to promote poker generally? Would you like to list all the other poker sites that run a 24/7 Poker TV Channel & a Forum? Be a pretty short list.....
"....But I passionately believe anything that a site can do to encourage / promote the game should be supported. A big thing Sky could do in this regard is offer better terms for micro players in relation to rake, which would have a follow on higher up the chain....." I also believe we all - Sites AND players - need to go on a PR offensive, & try & encourage more people to play our great game. Personally, yes, I would prefer the rake @ micro stakes to be lower, of course I would, my record of supporting low stakes players over many years (especially via APAT) is there for all to see. Suggesting that it is the cure-all for all of poker's ills is incorrect though.
Micro stakes players are like everyone else - they want to buy their product cheaper. That is perfectly understandable. Micro stake players generally have little interest in "good for the game" - what they want is cheaper poker, & I don't blame them one iota. But we need to call a spade a spade, & not dress it up as something else.
I had no particular wish to engage in this debate, but I was goaded into it, by suggestions that I had been told not to reply by the Business. What I've tried to do is bring balance, understanding, & explanations, as to "why". Someone needed to, it was all one way traffic. That's not a debate, a debate needs both sides expressed.
As to the thrust of the dabate, the "good for the game" cliche, I'll answer that more generally when I reply to Teddy Bloat's excellent Post.
Thanks to Tikay for taking the time out to post. It's one of those topics that players vs Sky employees will always have to agree to disagree on (micro stakes rake), but grown up debate is good. From the player side I can't really argue too hard when I'm one of the (growing) number of players that continue to play/pay so obviously prefer high rake + sky poker vs lower rake + other skins. If we all keep paying it, there really is little point in lowering the rake. The promos also feel way more micro-bias in the main, which no doubt levels things out, especially as they give losing players a chance to benefit (vs helping decent micro players boost winrates with lower rake) and invariably the money in the hand of losing players will help keep the games good. Re: the 200bb NL4, I thought the only purpose of that was so you could hands shown on TV from all levels. If you added a 100bb NL4 TV Table then I'd imagine very few (if any) would request a 200bb version... still surprised they don't, as it can't be that much harder to find hands worth showing than it is at NL10? Posted by shakinaces
Yes, debate is excellent. I've acknowledged I'm naturally biased, & I'm sure most people understand that. But it was necessary to post some facts, too. For the record, & once again, personally, yes, I'd prefer micro-stakes rake here to be lower. Yes I would. However, the Business is run by clever people, who seem to know what they are doing, (the results prove that) & they have access to the numbers that demonstrate the cost-benefit analysis of lower or higher rake at all levels. If they really thought reducing the rake would benefit the Business, don't you think they'd do it?! Like it or not, we need to accept that they know the numbers, & the facts, & we are all just guessing.
"....If we all keep paying it, there really is little point in lowering the rake...."
Supply & demand, the greatest natural leveller of all.
"....the 200bb NL4, I thought the only purpose of that was so you could hands shown on TV from all levels......"
Well I don't know, I'm just guessing, but no, I think that is back to front.
MasterCash Tables were NOT introduced to satisfy Ch 861, nothing ever is, the tail does not wag the dog. 861 is simply a promotional arm of the Business, it does not in itself dictate anything.
Televised Cash Tables were shown well before MasterCash Tables were introduced.
What (I assume) happened when the Mastercash Tables were introduced (in response to Customer demand for deeper-stacked cash games) was that someone Upstairs decided that deep-stacked cash would be a better product to televise, & so the MasterCash Tables were all given a TV Icon.
I have no idea why "non-Mastercash tables" are not shown these days, does seem a bit odd I suppose.
I suppose TV Icons could be added to non-Mastercash Tables at the flick of a switch, but there's never enough time to show everything people would like to see.
Given that cash games are the backbone of this & every other poker site (70% of action, give or take a few %), cash action does not really get the exposure on 861 it deserves, in some senses. I suppose MTT's are, to be fair, more exciting, they all have a beginning, a middle, & an end, unlike cash games which don't have those peaks of excitement which the majority of viewers want to see.
In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : Fair points sir. People do act childishly on here from time to time. As an aside, I guess you're posting this on your way home from the match. Not seen the results yet. How did you get on? I imagine against a team like Stoke you won by 4 or 5? Posted by Jac35
No need, no need at all. Hoewver, for those who missed it....
first up, kudos for 'engaging' and also for tempering the debate . i'll try to steer clear of emotive language, innit sky will of course charge as much as people are willing to pay. what i'm questioning is whether that is good for the long-term health of the games at the micro-stakes level [and the levels above actually]. in particular the games that are in the main unbeatable due to rake [sub £1 hyper HUSNG and DYMs all count]. if no-one is winning then the money is leaving the player pool. if people are deposting regularly then happy days for sky i guess. i'm not an economist or privvy to sky's business plan so i could be WAY off base, of course. you say that most recreationals dont have a win rate and play for enjoyment. i'm saying that it is impossible to have a win-rate in those games. poker is a form of gambling [with a skill element]. gambling games that offer a chance to 'spin up' or go on a mini-heater are surely more enjoyable? at the moment that would be difficult for even the best players on the site to achieve at those levels. see [editing name, not fair to bring his name up all the time]'s first diary for example. he felt fustrated and has quit playing numerous times. if he took his winrate to the level above he would have been a break even player. he is significantly better than the players in his games yet hemorrhaged money due to playing in unbeatable games. we all know just what a psychologically intense game poker is when you cant seem to win. these games are unbeatble. as the 'entry level' games, i'm not sure that they are a great introduction to poker for the peeps who might deposit a tenner to try this wonderful game of ours. if traffic and deposits are increasing at the micros, then fair enough: if sky keep offering unbeatable games they will clean up. just wondering if allowing players at the bottom to win and build a bank-roll would increase the liquidity of games [not just at the bottom, but throughout the site], would increase the enjoyement of the player-pool [winnning feels nicer than losing] and would be better for the long-term health of the site and business. i'm very pro sky and recommend the site to people all the time. the lobbies are clean and well set up, cashouts instant, and the community is fantastic. i do feel that microstakes players, however, are getting a bad deal. that they arent aware of that and are willing to play games that they dont know are unbeatable doesnt, for me at least, change that fact. again, i'm not an economist or in any way intersted in business models etc, but thats how things appear to my admittedly naive eyes. thanks. Posted by TeddyBloat
Thanks Teddy. I replied at length, but before I could press "POST", a Pop-Up killed my Post. Pfft!
Just addressing the higlighted parts for now.
1) That's how business works, generally.
2) Roulette is the most popular gambling game on earth, more people play it than any other game of it's type. Do you think they can beat roulette? We like to gamble, for the vast majority of micro-stakes players, it is a recreation which costs money, just like going down the pub, crown-green bowling, watching football, or visiting wooded car parks late at night on spurious grounds.
3) Deffo agree with that, you are very pro-Sky Poker, we are just having a debate. I agree, I wish the micro-stakes here were lower. I do. But the Business must have good reason, it is run by clever people, & SB&G has achieved outstanding results.
What I have tried to do is explain why, perhaps, the prices are what they are. It has nothing to do with my personal views on micro-stake players, I've supported them long & hard, over many years, both here & away from here, at APAT & similar, & I intend to continue so to do, as long as I am involved in the game.
Anyway, I'll now take a look at this "good for the game" thing, which we see quoted so very frequently. Sometimes I do wish I was not so contrarian, but it's good to look at things from a different angle sometimes, Charlie Munger style.
"...Recognize reality even when you don’t like it – especially when you don’t like it....."
If you happen to have a few minutes to spare, I feel sure you'll enjoy the musings of Mr Munger. (He is Warren Buffett's business partner). Just google "Charlie Munger quotes". I promise you, you won't regret it, it's lovely stuff.
When I read that I pictured a non poker playing businessman in a suit, reading a memo, and him concluding all is well at sky poker.
If the guys at the top are satisfied that means the much needed changes are less likely to happen anytime soon.
It's already noticeable how laboured everything is here, the French sites I play on that are younger than sky are always so pro active. They're streets ahead already.
So yes, it probably does look sarcastic but it's more frustration.
Not at you, but as ever you're the only sky voice that posts on stuff like this so it looks like it is aimed at you.
It would be nice to hear from the person 'up top' who actually makes these decisions.
I hope he's looking deeper than the stats on his balance sheet.
Online Poker Sites are commercial entities. Their aim is to maximise shareholder value, so they do things firstly in their own interests. That applies to every single poker site, bar none. There are no exceptions.
So whatever they do, their ultimate objective is to gain more revenue over the longer term.
"Longer term" means yes, to a degree, they need to do what's good for the game. Self-evident really.
Now, looking at this in its widest sense, do we really think that Sky Poker, who, globally, are barely a speck on the traffic landscape, can do much to make poker better?
They can try, yes, but in the greater scheme of things, it won't make a deal of difference.
I don't think, for example, having a Poker channel does any harm to poker generally, but I don't see too many other sites having one.
Micro-stakes rake @ Sky Poker may not be a good thing, I agree, but it barely makes any difference to poker generally, & I don't think anyone can say it damages the game. If peeps don't like the product or price, they simply go elsewhere, there are hundreds of alternatives, but generally, customers don't just look at one element, they look at the basket of value.
What WOULD make a difference is if the dominant player in the Market did certain things.
One site has over 80% - EIGHTY PER CENT - of the Market. Now there is a site that COULD make poker better. In fact, they already have by their sheer scale & general excellence. They are a wonderful site, too, no doubt about that. I played there from the day they started, & still have my Account there. If I saw a decent PLO8 game there, that I thought I could beat (lol), I might even play it.
But do we think that allowing third party software there is good for the game? Do micro-stakes & recreationals have a chance of beating guys armed with all manner of artificial aids?
How many different types of third party software do you think are allowed there? Guess.
10? No.
20? Try again.
50? Not even warm yet.
The answer is 118.
Do we really think that gives recreationals & micro-stakes players a reasonable chance of beating the game? The rake is less, yes. The playing field is level, no.
More expensive here, but fairer. Cheaper there, but arguably less fair.
That's the choice players have. And they can & will make their own minds up.
good for the game?
You judge that.
Wat it good for the game when all our accounts got frozen because they had been flouting the law?
You can judge that, too.
My point is, I see this good for the game cliche time & time again. I think it's a bit wider than the rake levels on a single site, & I can see far better things which should lobby for.
So there it is, all questions answered, even if you don't like the answers.
Personally, I wish the rake was level across all buy-ins. Its not, but I've tried to offer a few of the reasons, as I see them.
Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, see you on the tables later, I hope.
Last day of the month, get those Reward Points topped up, it's good for the game. Oh, wait.....
Comments
Good book.
I've read it twice.
Hilarious as always Brian
Why don't we just rent a room and be done with it?
Anyway, lets not derail, might get accused of being a troll and all that.
Traffic is increasing here, declining elsewhere, all is good. Sky is about to dominate!!! What u worried about!!!?
Morning all, off we go......
Thanks Sean.
I don't actually know why there are no MasterCash Tables @ 2p-4p, & I wish there were, but I suppose I could guess the reason.
As to televising them, yes, it'd be nice, of course it would, though I'm not convinced that showing too much 2p-4p Cash Action is the most cost-efficient way forward for a TV Channel that needs to attract viewers & new sign-ups. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world, & there will always be more interest in the "bigger" games.
Where do you get this idea from?....
"....Rightly or wrongly sometimes it feels people make all manner of positive suggestions for the site which appear to fall on deaf ears....."
Just because a suggestion is not implemented, does not mean it "falls on deaf ears". Many suggestions make no sense, or are impractical. That's not ignoring them. EVERY suggestion with any practical merit is considered. Bear in mind, most come from poker players who have no knowledge of running a poker site, or business practice generally.
"....Anything that can be done to promote the game should be encouraged....."
Do you not think Sky Poker help to promote poker generally? Would you like to list all the other poker sites that run a 24/7 Poker TV Channel & a Forum? Be a pretty short list.....
"....But I passionately believe anything that a site can do to encourage / promote the game should be supported. A big thing Sky could do in this regard is offer better terms for micro players in relation to rake, which would have a follow on higher up the chain....."
I also believe we all - Sites AND players - need to go on a PR offensive, & try & encourage more people to play our great game. Personally, yes, I would prefer the rake @ micro stakes to be lower, of course I would, my record of supporting low stakes players over many years (especially via APAT) is there for all to see. Suggesting that it is the cure-all for all of poker's ills is incorrect though.
Micro stakes players are like everyone else - they want to buy their product cheaper. That is perfectly understandable. Micro stake players generally have little interest in "good for the game" - what they want is cheaper poker, & I don't blame them one iota. But we need to call a spade a spade, & not dress it up as something else.
I had no particular wish to engage in this debate, but I was goaded into it, by suggestions that I had been told not to reply by the Business. What I've tried to do is bring balance, understanding, & explanations, as to "why". Someone needed to, it was all one way traffic. That's not a debate, a debate needs both sides expressed.
As to the thrust of the dabate, the "good for the game" cliche, I'll answer that more generally when I reply to Teddy Bloat's excellent Post.
"....If we all keep paying it, there really is little point in lowering the rake...."
Supply & demand, the greatest natural leveller of all.
"....the 200bb NL4, I thought the only purpose of that was so you could hands shown on TV from all levels......"
Well I don't know, I'm just guessing, but no, I think that is back to front.
MasterCash Tables were NOT introduced to satisfy Ch 861, nothing ever is, the tail does not wag the dog. 861 is simply a promotional arm of the Business, it does not in itself dictate anything.
Televised Cash Tables were shown well before MasterCash Tables were introduced.
What (I assume) happened when the Mastercash Tables were introduced (in response to Customer demand for deeper-stacked cash games) was that someone Upstairs decided that deep-stacked cash would be a better product to televise, & so the MasterCash Tables were all given a TV Icon.
I have no idea why "non-Mastercash tables" are not shown these days, does seem a bit odd I suppose.
I suppose TV Icons could be added to non-Mastercash Tables at the flick of a switch, but there's never enough time to show everything people would like to see.
Given that cash games are the backbone of this & every other poker site (70% of action, give or take a few %), cash action does not really get the exposure on 861 it deserves, in some senses. I suppose MTT's are, to be fair, more exciting, they all have a beginning, a middle, & an end, unlike cash games which don't have those peaks of excitement which the majority of viewers want to see.
Man C 0, Stoke City 1
Happy to answer any questions you may have.
Just addressing the higlighted parts for now.
1) That's how business works, generally.
2) Roulette is the most popular gambling game on earth, more people play it than any other game of it's type. Do you think they can beat roulette? We like to gamble, for the vast majority of micro-stakes players, it is a recreation which costs money, just like going down the pub, crown-green bowling, watching football, or visiting wooded car parks late at night on spurious grounds.
3) Deffo agree with that, you are very pro-Sky Poker, we are just having a debate. I agree, I wish the micro-stakes here were lower. I do. But the Business must have good reason, it is run by clever people, & SB&G has achieved outstanding results.
What I have tried to do is explain why, perhaps, the prices are what they are. It has nothing to do with my personal views on micro-stake players, I've supported them long & hard, over many years, both here & away from here, at APAT & similar, & I intend to continue so to do, as long as I am involved in the game.
Anyway, I'll now take a look at this "good for the game" thing, which we see quoted so very frequently. Sometimes I do wish I was not so contrarian, but it's good to look at things from a different angle sometimes, Charlie Munger style.
"...Recognize reality even when you don’t like it – especially when you don’t like it....."
If you happen to have a few minutes to spare, I feel sure you'll enjoy the musings of Mr Munger. (He is Warren Buffett's business partner). Just google "Charlie Munger quotes". I promise you, you won't regret it, it's lovely stuff.
Go on, have a quick google of that.....
good for the game......
Well first up, let's be right here.
Online Poker Sites are commercial entities. Their aim is to maximise shareholder value, so they do things firstly in their own interests. That applies to every single poker site, bar none. There are no exceptions.
So whatever they do, their ultimate objective is to gain more revenue over the longer term.
"Longer term" means yes, to a degree, they need to do what's good for the game. Self-evident really.
Now, looking at this in its widest sense, do we really think that Sky Poker, who, globally, are barely a speck on the traffic landscape, can do much to make poker better?
They can try, yes, but in the greater scheme of things, it won't make a deal of difference.
I don't think, for example, having a Poker channel does any harm to poker generally, but I don't see too many other sites having one.
Micro-stakes rake @ Sky Poker may not be a good thing, I agree, but it barely makes any difference to poker generally, & I don't think anyone can say it damages the game. If peeps don't like the product or price, they simply go elsewhere, there are hundreds of alternatives, but generally, customers don't just look at one element, they look at the basket of value.
What WOULD make a difference is if the dominant player in the Market did certain things.
One site has over 80% - EIGHTY PER CENT - of the Market. Now there is a site that COULD make poker better. In fact, they already have by their sheer scale & general excellence. They are a wonderful site, too, no doubt about that. I played there from the day they started, & still have my Account there. If I saw a decent PLO8 game there, that I thought I could beat (lol), I might even play it.
But do we think that allowing third party software there is good for the game? Do micro-stakes & recreationals have a chance of beating guys armed with all manner of artificial aids?
How many different types of third party software do you think are allowed there? Guess.
10? No.
20? Try again.
50? Not even warm yet.
The answer is 118.
Do we really think that gives recreationals & micro-stakes players a reasonable chance of beating the game? The rake is less, yes. The playing field is level, no.
More expensive here, but fairer. Cheaper there, but arguably less fair.
That's the choice players have. And they can & will make their own minds up.
good for the game?
You judge that.
Wat it good for the game when all our accounts got frozen because they had been flouting the law?
You can judge that, too.
My point is, I see this good for the game cliche time & time again. I think it's a bit wider than the rake levels on a single site, & I can see far better things which should lobby for.
So there it is, all questions answered, even if you don't like the answers.
Personally, I wish the rake was level across all buy-ins. Its not, but I've tried to offer a few of the reasons, as I see them.
Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, see you on the tables later, I hope.
Last day of the month, get those Reward Points topped up, it's good for the game. Oh, wait.....