Thanks Teddy. I replied at length, but before I could press "POST", a Pop-Up killed my Post. Pfft!
SORT IT OUT SKY!!!ELEVEN!!
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.
the difference between roulette - a game where the house has a low edge and a punter can spin a few quid into a few hundred in a session - and unbeatable micro stakes dyms is that in the micro dym you simply cannot turn a few quid into a decent amount. - even long term you can be beating the field 59% of the time and still go slowly broke. i'm not arguing for uber low rake, just enough so that games are beatable for micro stake players.
i'm not saying that people dont currently have fun playing just that they might have more fun if they could turn that initail deposit, with the winds of variance at their back, into a decent amount over the course of a month.
i have no idea what effect that this Obstacle To Win Rate has on redeposits - it may have none in which case my input aint worth jack. but we do see people fustrated at not being able to beat games and quitting, we do see people who think that the rng is the only thing that stops them from winning in games filled with players that they should be beating [in a pithy sense it is the site's rake level that is the true 'rig' preventing them winning] - so there might just be legs in the idea that if games were beatable then people might be encouraged to play / deposit more [i would think that applies to pure recreationals that dont mind losing the poker budget each month and the aspiring players who enjoy learning about strategy and playing competetively]. again i may be extremely naive making that correlation: people far smarter than i have more information than me and are coming to a different conclusion, so meh.
on a more basic level and purely donning my poker-player-trade-unionist flat cap and donkey jacket -given that micro players are unlikely to be aware of these issues and how to voice them i do think it incumbent on us who have escaped those stakes to make a case on their behalf. and sites offering games that are unbeatable just plain grinds my gears in general - rightly or wrongly.
finally, **edit i have just read the post above mine**, i dont know how much sky pay you, but it isnt enough. thanks for your input on this.
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. Posted by DOHHHHHHH
Understood, & thank you. Your comment was unbelievably frustrating to me, as I was asked to engage, & I did. I don't need to spend my weekend doing this, I have parsnips that need tending on my allotment.
Stats on the balance sheet? Well we should always read between the lines when doing that, as any accountant will tell us. But overall, I doubt they look much further than stats & balance sheets - it's a business. We are poker enthusiasts, they are a Business. There is bound to be conflict. It's standard, & it's fine.
That French site you refer to? Yes, very good indeed, & full of new ideas. Like. I don't like - personally - the idea of all the rigmarole of having to Register with a Foreign site though, & sending them scanned documents.
Again, their rake is probably lower, but they don't have several things that Sky Poker have, 861, Community, tons of Promos every month. Or some boring old geezer, way past his poker sell-by-date, trying to answer Clients questions.
And players HAVE THAT CHOICE.
Now that IS good for the game, don't you think?
PS - Look forward to your end of month report in your Diary tomoprrow. I'm making OVER 1p per game this month. Can you beat that?
I haven't read all posts but stars and rake seemed to mentioned a quite a bit.
What people are forgetting is sky is softer than stars.
I am quite happy to get less rakeback or even pay higher rake for a softer table.
Remember its about the total package. On sky we get very generous sports bettors/sky bingo players who have had a big win and wanting to share the wealth. You don't get this on stars. Sky is also better at getting new players, someone who has never played poker is much more likely to play on sky than a company they have never heard of.
Is stars really bigger than sky? In terms of unique UK players I don't think it is.
Grind 2p/4p on here for a month, then do the same on stars for a month. I bet you will make more here.
I still think the lobby is ridiculously cluttered, but yes its not as cluttered as stars.
if you look at the cash lobby there is more nl4 games going on than any other level almost all day,whilst there is more people playing nl4 it would seem bad business sense to lower the rake,but then again if the rake was lower you would get even more playing nl4
great debate this if you look at the cash lobby there is more nl4 games going on than any other level almost all day,whilst there is more people playing nl4 it would seem bad business sense to lower the rake,but then again if the rake was lower you would get even more playing nl4 Posted by stokefc
That's about the sum of it Stokey.
And the sum is simple.
If they reduced the rake by 20%, they would need traffic/margin to increase by 25% to stand still.
Anything north of 25% is gain, anything less is loss.
Would it? I've no idea. Think we can reasonably assume that they have done the sums, and considered it though, as it is such an obvious point.
Scores of players have suggested reducing the rake would be be better for the site. They may be right, but have they done the maths?
In Response to Re: NL4 cash tables with max 50bb buy-in? : That's about the sum of it Stokey. And the sum is simple. If they reduced the rake by 20%, they would need traffic/margin to increase by 25% to stand still. Anything north of 25% is gain, anything less is loss. Would it? I've no idea. Think we can reasonably assume that they have done the sums, and considered it though, as it is such an obvious point. Scores of players have suggested reducing the rake would be be better for the site. They may be right, but have they done the maths? Posted by Tikay10
but have they done the maths?
A very good point tony .
But like you tony i am but one person ,
The following you stated in above post :
Scores of players have suggested reducing the rake would be be better for the site. They may be right ?
I believe if skypoker dont take the above risk its faith is,
that it will be swallowed up .
lets call it as it is skypoker tony our site / skypoker / sky brand is a huge let down
when it comes to tops 5k live online users at peak time this after a decade in business
as a sky global brand .
A huge shake up and risk take needs to happen on skypoker .
I believe you need a reputable independent company or person to have a look at
skypoker and help us to move forward and remodel and remove where necessary .
In shock that 3 hours was spent discussing two pounds ........... Got to be more to life? Surely. zzz Posted by RyanC7
soz that you missed the core point of this discussing that advanced to where we are ryan ,
but if you read through the thread you may see that it kind of veers towards the very foundations of skypoker and the platform on which it is built on .
one thinks that may deserves 3hrs don't you ?
sue .
p.s please don't ask me to explain the above i note you are far more clever than that
Comments
Thanks Teddy. I replied at length, but before I could press "POST", a Pop-Up killed my Post. Pfft!
SORT IT OUT SKY!!!ELEVEN!!
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.
the difference between roulette - a game where the house has a low edge and a punter can spin a few quid into a few hundred in a session - and unbeatable micro stakes dyms is that in the micro dym you simply cannot turn a few quid into a decent amount. - even long term you can be beating the field 59% of the time and still go slowly broke. i'm not arguing for uber low rake, just enough so that games are beatable for micro stake players.
i'm not saying that people dont currently have fun playing just that they might have more fun if they could turn that initail deposit, with the winds of variance at their back, into a decent amount over the course of a month.
i have no idea what effect that this Obstacle To Win Rate has on redeposits - it may have none in which case my input aint worth jack. but we do see people fustrated at not being able to beat games and quitting, we do see people who think that the rng is the only thing that stops them from winning in games filled with players that they should be beating [in a pithy sense it is the site's rake level that is the true 'rig' preventing them winning] - so there might just be legs in the idea that if games were beatable then people might be encouraged to play / deposit more [i would think that applies to pure recreationals that dont mind losing the poker budget each month and the aspiring players who enjoy learning about strategy and playing competetively]. again i may be extremely naive making that correlation: people far smarter than i have more information than me and are coming to a different conclusion, so meh.
on a more basic level and purely donning my poker-player-trade-unionist flat cap and donkey jacket -given that micro players are unlikely to be aware of these issues and how to voice them i do think it incumbent on us who have escaped those stakes to make a case on their behalf. and sites offering games that are unbeatable just plain grinds my gears in general - rightly or wrongly.
finally, **edit i have just read the post above mine**, i dont know how much sky pay you, but it isnt enough. thanks for your input on this.
top man.
Stats on the balance sheet? Well we should always read between the lines when doing that, as any accountant will tell us. But overall, I doubt they look much further than stats & balance sheets - it's a business. We are poker enthusiasts, they are a Business. There is bound to be conflict. It's standard, & it's fine.
That French site you refer to? Yes, very good indeed, & full of new ideas. Like. I don't like - personally - the idea of all the rigmarole of having to Register with a Foreign site though, & sending them scanned documents.
Again, their rake is probably lower, but they don't have several things that Sky Poker have, 861, Community, tons of Promos every month. Or some boring old geezer, way past his poker sell-by-date, trying to answer Clients questions.
And players HAVE THAT CHOICE.
Now that IS good for the game, don't you think?
PS - Look forward to your end of month report in your Diary tomoprrow. I'm making OVER 1p per game this month. Can you beat that?
I haven't read all posts but stars and rake seemed to mentioned a quite a bit.
What people are forgetting is sky is softer than stars.
I am quite happy to get less rakeback or even pay higher rake for a softer table.
Remember its about the total package. On sky we get very generous sports bettors/sky bingo players who have had a big win and wanting to share the wealth. You don't get this on stars. Sky is also better at getting new players, someone who has never played poker is much more likely to play on sky than a company they have never heard of.
Is stars really bigger than sky? In terms of unique UK players I don't think it is.
Grind 2p/4p on here for a month, then do the same on stars for a month. I bet you will make more here.
I still think the lobby is ridiculously cluttered, but yes its not as cluttered as stars.