Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change?

GELDY

back in the days of the viva las vegas final the cash was spread out over the bubble boys/girls. but for the punta cana final it all went to the package winners. i thought this was very unsatisfactory and an undesirable change. the mini/main jackpot got changed to make it more inclusive, but this change is in the opposite direction. i would have been more likely to buy in direct if the original system was still in place. (AK<TT in the semi). Heart goes out to IrishRose on the pure bubble, and kimpet who had previously also bubbled a VLV final (but at least got some bubble cash that time)

two questions

1. why change?

2. any chance it can be changed back for the next such promotion?

VLV structure - thks to GaryQQQ's thread archive.

oldboy271	75000	1	£10k Vegas Package
GELDY	0	2	£2500
AB0151	0	3	£1500
LOL_RAISE	0	4	£1000
RUNITSRANN	0	5

PC final structure

Eizy	160000	1	£1295 + Punta Cana Package
aussie09	0	2	£770 + Punta Cana Package
rndmmuppet	0	3	£525 + Punta Cana Package
jubb	0	4	£385 + Punta Cana Package
smoki3	0	5	£280 + Punta Cana Package
skaggen108	0	6	£245 + Punta Cana Package
Sir-Gary	0	7	Punta Cana Package
IrishRose	0	8	nil
kimpet	0	9	nil

Chris_Mc

Thought this was really poor aswell.

Why just this tournament though? I relise it did say in the lobby before hand that it would be split amongst the 7.

Wp all though and unlucky again rose

GBUK

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change?:

Thought this was really poor aswell. Why just this tournament though? I relise it did say in the lobby before hand that it would be split amongst the 7. Wp all though and unlucky again rose
Posted by Chris_Mc

Defo agree,it was so heartbreaking & gutting to watch Rose bubble an not get a slice of anything,not even overlay cash  

She soooo deserved to get something at least...Vwp love & Vul xx

bbMike

There were only 7 packages available all worth £3500. In a 'regular' sat if another £3500 was raised in entries it would create another seat, if less then there's bubble cash. In this case though it wouldn't be desirable to have the bubble paying say £3500 in cash (not as a package) because for some that would be more attractive than the package itself. Hard then to start splitting at a sensible rate below the package places. Adding the money to the top 7 made it more of a tournament less of a satellite though still with a hefty bubble.

Who knows the reasons why, but I suspect it was driven by the finite number of packages available.

HENDRIK62

One reason may have been flight prices, given that the allowance was £800 and the package was for two people most were looking at having to subsidise their cost to get there (not really a big issue if truth be told). I wonder whether the PTB have realised this may have been a mistake and decided to add the spare cash to the top thereby effectively paying the extra costs for flights.........

I think that a breakdown of perhaps £2k, £1k, £500 would have softened the blow and been fairer to those that bubbled.

FlashFlush

I think for this tournament they have clearly stated that nobody should enter unless they are available to travel and use the package. No transfers would be allowed. The tournament is to win a seat at Punta Cana, not to win money. So to add money to the bubble players then makes it appealing to players who do not particularly want to go to the Dominican Republic but play for the cash instead. Which is not what this promotion is about. Lets face it, £1300 is more than you can win in most tournaments on here.

I think the fact a forum favourite has stone cold bubbled is the reason this is being looked at more deeply. If MattBates had bubbled, everyone would just laugh. ;-)

hhyftrftdr

Yeah I think in this instance they were right to keep everything within the top 7, however unfortunate that might be for bubble boy or girl.

Hopefully Sky can do more of these to various locations around the world, if VLV remains unfeasible.

The_Don90

Wait a minute - Doesnt a package include Flight prices. Every package tournament ive ever heard of on any site includes travel and hotel. 

From sky's point of view - The best thing to do is split the money from 8th down. or since in this case the money would actually make an extra package - give an extra package. Even if they haven't got the ability to offer a extra package, whats the most likely way to get 8th to play this event half way across the world - let give them nothing and split the money between the people who are going or giving money to 8th, or splitting the money to 8th - 12th like a certain other site does. 

Sky picked the worst possible option of those 3. 

I have to say ive been alienated with alot of stuff sky have done over the past 18 months or so, but i hope this one at least gives them a kick in the right direction. 

For those that made it though, enjoy

MattBates

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change?:

I think for this tournament they have clearly stated that nobody should enter unless they are available to travel and use the package. No transfers would be allowed. The tournament is to win a seat at Punta Cana, not to win money. So to add money to the bubble players then makes it appealing to players who do not particularly want to go to the Dominican Republic but play for the cash instead. Which is not what this promotion is about. Lets face it, £1300 is more than you can win in most tournaments on here. I think the fact a forum favourite has stone cold bubbled is the reason this is being looked at more deeply. If MattBates had bubbled, everyone would just laugh. ;-)
Posted by FlashFlush

Who would have played the sat to win £1300 for a £770 entry though? I understand that if it was £3500 cash it would have made it an interesting dynamic and people might have gone for the £3500 rather than the package. Maybe they could have gone for money back for those finishing outside the packages if they weren't adding more packages. I would have thought adding the £ to the packages would stop some being regging compared to having the traditional 1 in X format.

With these sorts of sats there will always be someone who gets pipped at the post. I agree with flash that the reason people are looking into in as much detail is because of who bubbled. It really shows how highly thought of someone is when you saw the number of people on the rail and willing her to win. The fans favourite missed out this time but she will come back fighting!

FlashFlush

Obviously they wouldn't pay the full £770, but I mean tried to satellite in to play for any left over money. 

GELDY

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change?:

I think the fact a forum favourite has stone cold bubbled is the reason this is being looked at more deeply. If MattBates had bubbled, everyone would just laugh. ;-)
Posted by FlashFlush

• with respect even though i am an IrishRose fan i would hold this view no matter who bubbled. Even matt. and yes if there is a lot of cash left over give some to the seat winners. But providing a glide path on the bubble to smooth the cliff just makes it a nicer tournament to play. i certainly felt a lot better with my vlv bubble cash than if it had been a stone cold bubble. and i thought well of skypoker. 
• and if i had played this and bubbled and got nothing knowing there was loads of overlay i would not have been happy. Which is the main reason i didn't buy in direct to the final. 

MacMonster

I don't think it was of who the bubble person was has caused more interest in this, I think I would have the same opinion whoever it was.

I can understand why they put the cash above the line but if I was the bubble boy and didn't get a seat because there was only a finite number of packages available I would not be happy to hear Sky have today emailed people to advertise a freeroll next weekend to win a package. So there was obviously a package available.

The sats in the lead up were to win a package and enough money was collected to pay for more than the number of pakages given, I think its a shame one was held back for this freeroll given that enough was collected to provide a further package.

Just my opinion

Ian

DivsDreams

In regards to what Geldy posted first , regardless to whoever bubbled- this for sky players is no doubt the way it should be imo. Most players aren't big hitters and was a chance in a lifetime..
The play by chip leader at the time with 8 left was correct imo... he went all in knowing that jubb and rose cant call with weak cards and a £3500 package up for grabs. But if say 8th paid £2000 and 9th £1500 woulda stopped him going all in every hand and made it a better watch and game..
Also there was only 7 packages but now an 8th has magically appeared to be determined by a freeroll. Get a grip sky, that is a joke really is. A luckbox player will win a £3500 holiday for gaining 20 points and jamming every hand.. Round of applause from me!.

FlashFlush

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change?:

I don't think it was of who the bubble person was has caused more interest in this, I think I would have the same opinion whoever it was. I can understand why they put the cash above the line but if I was the bubble boy and didn't get a seat because there was only a finite number of packages available I would not be happy to hear Sky have today emailed people to advertise a freeroll next weekend to win a package. So there was obviously a package available. The sats in the lead up were to win a package and enough money was collected to pay for more than the number of pakages given, I think its a shame one was held back for this freeroll given that enough was collected to provide a further package. Just my opinion Ian
Posted by MacMonster

Agree with this.

Also noticed that there is a £2000 bubble prize as well which goes against the theory in my earlier post. I'm confused now.

IrishRose

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change?:

I don't think it was of who the bubble person was has caused more interest in this, I think I would have the same opinion whoever it was. I can understand why they put the cash above the line but if I was the bubble boy and didn't get a seat because there was only a finite number of packages available I would not be happy to hear Sky have today emailed people to advertise a freeroll next weekend to win a package. So there was obviously a package available. The sats in the lead up were to win a package and enough money was collected to pay for more than the number of pakages given, I think its a shame one was held back for this freeroll given that enough was collected to provide a further package. Just my opinion Ian
Posted by MacMonster

"The sats in the lead up were to win a package and enough money was collected to pay for more than the number of pakages given, I think its a shame one was held back for this freeroll given that enough was collected to provide a further package.

"

Hi all - excuse typing as on mobile and can't see screen very well.  I was obviously the bubble girl last night.  I had read all along that there was min 7 seats guaranteed for the final.  In my naivety I assumed (wrongly) that this was a min number of seats - not total number of seats.  It was only on day of final that I saw Tikays thread which said any excess distributed among top players.

When I bubbled I felt dreadful - as anyone would - but I accepted that there was only 7 seats available and Sky couldn't magic any extra from thin air.  I now actually feel really sick to my stomach at receiving the email inviting me to try a freeroll for an extra seat.  It just feels like a kick in the teeth.  I wish those who won their seats all the luck in the world - but yes - at this moment in time I'm disallusioned with Sky poker.  Why say 7 seats due to limits when it obviously wasn't limited number of packages?

DivsDreams

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change?:

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change? : " The sats in the lead up were to win a package and enough money was collected to pay for more than the number of pakages given, I think its a shame one was held back for this freeroll given that enough was collected to provide a further package. " Hi all - excuse typing as on mobile and can't see screen very well.  I was obviously the bubble girl last night.  I had read all along that there was min 7 seats guaranteed for the final.  In my naivety I assumed (wrongly) that this was a min number of seats - not total number of seats.  It was only on day of final that I saw Tikays thread which said any excess distributed among top players. When I bubbled I felt dreadful - as anyone would - but I accepted that there was only 7 seats available and Sky couldn't magic any extra from thin air.  I now actually feel really sick to my stomach at receiving the email inviting me to try a freeroll for an extra seat.  It just feels like a kick in the teeth.  I wish those who won their seats all the luck in the world - but yes - at this moment in time I'm disallusioned with Sky poker.  Why say 7 seats due to limits when it obviously wasn't limited number of packages?
Posted by IrishRose

+1

LARSON7

Agree with OP

I would just have thought it was a sat like any other, seats plus any excess paid as £ to the bubble for the seat.

Pretty sure most people would have been under this impression too, when they had played all the sits into the "final sat"

IMO, the bubble should atleast be refunded the buy in for the Sat, would only seem fair.

cenachav

Looks like people forgot to check the T+C's of the punta cana promo.  It clearly says how the excess prize money would be distributed

https://www.skypoker.com/secure/poker/sky_lobby/poker-promotions/puntacana?dcmp=p_pr_puntacana

GBUK

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change?:

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change? : +1
Posted by DivsDreams

Rose should get that 8th seat IMO!! Divsdreams is spot on!

DTWBANDIT

In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the awful change?:

In regards to what Geldy posted first , regardless to whoever bubbled- this for sky players is no doubt the way it should be imo. Most players aren't big hitters and was a chance in a lifetime.. The play by chip leader at the time with 8 left was correct imo... he went all in knowing that jubb and rose cant call with weak cards and a £3500 package up for grabs. But if say 8th paid £2000 and 9th £1500 woulda stopped him going all in every hand and made it a better watch and game.. Also there was only 7 packages but now an 8th has magically appeared to be determined by a freeroll. Get a grip sky, that is a joke really is. A luckbox player will win a £3500 holiday for gaining 20 points and jamming every hand.. Round of applause from me!.
Posted by DivsDreams

   +1

FlyingDagg

As a good friend of Rose I have to say that the play on the bubble was hard to watch. Fair play to the winner for shoving every hand to take the top prize but it's 100% certain he wouldn't have done it without the extra cash incentive. Unfortunately it killed the game for the 2 shorties and must have been so frustrating for them both.

 Rose if Sky have sent you an email inviting you to a FR for an 8th place tell em to shove it where the sun don't shine!