Just a short point. It may not be possible to give a seat if the player can not make it. Would it not make sense to give Rose something, for all the reasons already mentioned in this post? Maybe at the very least , the buy in for Satelite? I understand it was a tricky situation, as a regular Sky player - I feel it would be the right thing for Sky to do. The reason i'm saying this is players were not giving much notice about the structure. As in any "excess" would be distributed amongst the top 7 players. Tbh, I didn't realise till during the game when I was railing Rose, every other Sat on sky naturally pays the excess as £ to the bubble. I feel if Sky were to offer something, this situation could be defused. Posted by LARSON7
Would you say the same if the unfortunate bubble was some random?
You shouldn't look to move the goalposts after the game.
Obviously if the true bubble had been 9th and not 8th, things would have played out differently at that stage.
The person finishing 8th was no more a winner in this tournament than the person finishing 40th. The winning positions were set out at the start and everyone knew that 8th got nothing, just the same as everyone knocked out earlier.
You shouldn't look to move the goalposts after the game. Obviously if the true bubble had been 9th and not 8th, things would have played out differently at that stage. The person finishing 8th was no more a winner in this tournament than the person finishing 40th. The winning positions were set out at the start and everyone knew that 8th got nothing, just the same as everyone knocked out earlier. Posted by BorinLoner
Think the thing is people maybe didn't understand the format - I certainly didn't till railing Rose.
So the format was quite different to a normal Sat on Sky.
It's based on that why I was saying atleast refunding the Sat buy in would make sense.
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : Think the thing is people maybe didn't understand the format - I certainly didn't till railing Rose. So the format was quite different to a normal Sat on Sky. It's based on that why I was saying atleast refunding the Sat buy in would make sense. Posted by LARSON7
Is it not the responsibility of the people playing the sat to know exactly what the prize structure is? Single click of the lobby reveals all.
If someone somehow got to the bubble (I'm not saying that Rose did whatsoever) without once actually checking out the prize distribution, then that person only has themselves to blame.
If someone somehow got to the bubble (I'm not saying that Rose did whatsoever) without once actually checking out the prize distribution, then that person only has themselves to blame. Posted by hhyftrftdr
and you check the prize structure for every single tournament you enter just in case it's changed from the usual sky standard?
Now i had seen tikays thread which is one of the reasons i didn't buy in direct. But many players don't read the forum so assiduously. That's why moving the goalposts in an unexpected and negative way upsets me so much. skypoker has a reputation of being player friendly but this time it didn't work out that way. hence my twisted knickers trying to avoid this happening again.
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : I actually thought the old style VLV package, where the qualifiers were met at the Airport, & generally "looked after" by a familiar face from Sky Poker, was the bees knees, but all this new Regulation malarky has changed the way poker sites have to work, & there's not much can be done about that. Again, improved Regulation is a good thing, a very good thing imo, but it comes with a few negatives, too, like everything. Posted by Tikay10
I actually have decided to quote this bit, and more enquiring about regulation than anything.
I would love VLV to return, and seems that sky are keen to - well at least yourself from your posts. That gives me some hope that one day it could happen.
You mention in this specific post that makes me worry though. In the past yourself, or someone else from the site would meet people from the airport and look after them. This is one of the things that always appealed to me about why i specifically only want to do a Vegas package with Sky - well at least my first one if i can get through sats.
However this post makes me worry that this would not be possible. Is this something of the past now, or would we have to advertise yourself/Rich as a Holiday rep for that to even be allowed to happen.
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : and you check the prize structure for every single tournament you enter just in case it's changed from the usual sky standard? Now i had seen tikays thread which is one of the reasons i didn't buy in direct. But many players don't read the forum so assiduously. That's why moving the goalposts in an unexpected and negative way upsets me so much. skypoker has a reputation of being player friendly but this time it didn't work out that way. hence my twisted knickers trying to avoid this happening again. Posted by GELDY
No of course I don't, but are you really comparing a £770 sat to a £5 f/o? If I'm still in when late reg closes then I always check the lobby to see what the crack is in terms of positions paid.
Avoid what happening again? Sky are well within their rights to do as they please with their tournament. Tikay did his best to get the message out that this would be an unusual bubble, but ultimately if someone doesn't check the lobby and just plays on blindly, then there can be no grumbling if they bubble (again, not saying this was the case with Rose).
I really cannot believe the fuss being kicked up here, and if it wasn't a 'name' as the unfortunate bubble then there wouldn't be a peep out of anyone.
Also +1 to what BorinLoner put. I think it's pretty sh1tty if someone has qualified knowing they might not be able to make it, but ultimately it's their prize to do with as they please.
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : No of course I don't, but are you really comparing a £770 sat to a £5 f/o? If I'm still in when late reg closes then I always check the lobby to see what the crack is in terms of positions paid. Avoid what happening again? Sky are well within their rights to do as they please with their tournament. Tikay did his best to get the message out that this would be an unusual bubble, but ultimately if someone doesn't check the lobby and just plays on blindly, then there can be no grumbling if they bubble (again, not saying this was the case with Rose). I really cannot believe the fuss being kicked up here, and if it wasn't a 'name' as the unfortunate bubble then there wouldn't be a peep out of anyone. Also +1 to what BorinLoner put. I think it's pretty sh1tty if someone has qualified knowing they might not be able to make it, but ultimately it's their prize to do with as they please. Posted by hhyftrftdr
I've made my position on this very clear. As you will learn as you mature, peeps find all sorts of things to get their knickers in a twist about.
Some are sensible, like getting rid of child abuse.
Some less so, such as demonstrating for totally free elections in HK
and others just curious, such as campaigning to get a clearer bubble cash policy upfront on skypoker.
The fact i wish to do the latter is up to me. I'm mostly harmless in this regard but i certainly resent someone suggesting my motives are otherwise. sure I'd join in a support Rose thread if there was one, but the personalities involved (sorry Rose) are totally irrelevant to my campaign.
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : Is it not the responsibility of the people playing the sat to know exactly what the prize structure is? Single click of the lobby reveals all. Posted by hhyftrftdr
+1 .
Was in the terms and c's from the very start of the promo. In the tourne lobby aswell, not much more Sky could do.
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : I've made my position on this very clear. As you will learn as you mature, peeps find all sorts of things to get their knickers in a twist about. Some are sensible, like getting rid of child abuse. Some less so, such as demonstrating for totally free elections in HK and others just curious, such as campaigning to get a clearer bubble cash policy upfront on skypoker. The fact i wish to do the latter is up to me. I'm mostly harmless in this regard but i certainly resent someone suggesting my motives are otherwise. sure I'd join in a support Rose thread if there was one, but the personalities involved (sorry Rose) are totally irrelevant to my campaign. Posted by GELDY
But this is the thing Geldy. Everyone was emailed a link to the Punta Cana promotions page, it was in the T&C on said page. It was even written on the forum as it was slightly different to usual. It was on the tournament lobby page. How much more clear do you want it to be?
I'm not entirely sure why you still seem to be debating it. Tikay has said himself it was likely to be a one off (May be the same for furure VLV packages if there are any)
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : I've made my position on this very clear. As you will learn as you mature, peeps find all sorts of things to get their knickers in a twist about. Some are sensible, like getting rid of child abuse. Some less so, such as demonstrating for totally free elections in HK and others just curious, such as campaigning to get a clearer bubble cash policy upfront on skypoker. The fact i wish to do the latter is up to me. I'm mostly harmless in this regard but i certainly resent someone suggesting my motives are otherwise. sure I'd join in a support Rose thread if there was one, but the personalities involved (sorry Rose) are totally irrelevant to my campaign. Posted by GELDY
What campaign? You wanted to know if this was the bubble structure going forward. Tikay informs you it was a one off (as I knew it would be).
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : But this is the thing Geldy. Everyone was emailed a link to the Punta Cana promotions page, it was in the T&C on said page. It was even written on the forum as it was slightly different to usual. It was on the tournament lobby page. How much more clear do you want it to be? I'm not entirely sure why you still seem to be debating it. Tikay has said himself it was likely to be a one off (May be the same for furure VLV packages if there are any) Posted by FlashFlush
i know
i thought i was done with tikay's reply as well
but Harry seems to want to continue banging on about it and casting dispersions about people's ulterior motives. and I've allowed myself to get sucked in to reply.
But point taken. Tikay had confirmed that it was an (unfortunate) one-off and things will be better going forward. job done. i will no longer post on this thread of mine. Even given Harry's latest comment. We all have our own opinions of what is absurd. STOP.
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? : i know i thought i was done with tikay's reply as well but Harry seems to want to continue banging on about it and casting dispersions about people's ulterior motives. and I've allowed myself to get sucked in to reply. But point taken. Tikay had confirmed that it was an (unfortunate) one-off and things will be better going forward. job done. i will no longer post on this thread of mine. Even given Harry's latest comment. We all have our own opinions of what is absurd. STOP. Posted by GELDY
I made one comment about how you can untwist your knickers now that Tikay had confirmed what most of us knew.
You didn't reply to that, not that it needed one, but then jumped on me asking if I check the lobby for all the MTT's I play just because I said it was the responsibility of the player to know the payout structure. Which I stand by 100%. Thankfully Rose knew the structure before it started (says so on page 1), she's just very unlucky to finish 8th, unfortunately someone had to finish 8th.
In Response to Re: Bubble cash in sats for live tournaments - why the change? I think it's pretty sh1tty if someone has qualified knowing they might not be able to make it, but ultimately it's their prize to do with as they please. Posted by hhyftrftdr
Hi all
I think people are getting confused about my "complaint" about this promotion. I have no issue with the fact that only 7 packages were up for grabs - even though obviously it would have been nice to have had 8 as a nice round number of 40 players took part.
My "issue" is with the fact that if someone has won one of these packages and are NOT going to Punta Cana then I honestly do believe that the tourney entry and hotel room should be given to the next placed person in the qualifier. I don't agree that "it's their prize to do with as they please." as the terms and conditions which I keep being referred back to actually state that if the person doesn't go then they forfeit their prize!! "No. All prizes are non-refundable, non-transferable and cannot be converted to cash. You must go or forfeit your seat and package."
Surely if a prize is forfeit it amounts to the same thing as disqualification? In which case the usual terms of a players being disqualified usually means that everyone else moves up a place on the prize board??
I'm only guessing at this stage as obviously I don't yet know if all 7 players are going to Punta Cana to actually play the tournament. If they are then fine - if they're not then it appears to be a question that genuinely needs answering.
Or is it a case of Sky just pocketing the additional £3500 package as additional profit?
Surely it's a bridge that only needs crossing if it does come to light that someone has won a package but can't/won't go?
Forfeit and disqualification are 2 different things entirely.
And I don't think this freeroll package has materialised from someone not being able to attend, as has been suggested. I would've thought that this final package was always going to be up for grabs in a freeroll, giving Sky potentially great marketing juice should the dream happen (freeroller scoops big cash etc etc).
Comments
So the format was quite different to a normal Sat on Sky.
It's based on that why I was saying atleast refunding the Sat buy in would make sense.
Avoid what happening again? Sky are well within their rights to do as they please with their tournament. Tikay did his best to get the message out that this would be an unusual bubble, but ultimately if someone doesn't check the lobby and just plays on blindly, then there can be no grumbling if they bubble (again, not saying this was the case with Rose).
I really cannot believe the fuss being kicked up here, and if it wasn't a 'name' as the unfortunate bubble then there wouldn't be a peep out of anyone.
Also +1 to what BorinLoner put. I think it's pretty sh1tty if someone has qualified knowing they might not be able to make it, but ultimately it's their prize to do with as they please.
Was in the terms and c's from the very start of the promo. In the tourne lobby aswell, not much more Sky could do.
Rest of the post is absurd.
You didn't reply to that, not that it needed one, but then jumped on me asking if I check the lobby for all the MTT's I play just because I said it was the responsibility of the player to know the payout structure. Which I stand by 100%. Thankfully Rose knew the structure before it started (says so on page 1), she's just very unlucky to finish 8th, unfortunately someone had to finish 8th.
Forfeit and disqualification are 2 different things entirely.
And I don't think this freeroll package has materialised from someone not being able to attend, as has been suggested. I would've thought that this final package was always going to be up for grabs in a freeroll, giving Sky potentially great marketing juice should the dream happen (freeroller scoops big cash etc etc).
Unlucky again Rose.