In Response to Automatic Disqualification : This is a wind up right????? If you can't beat an away player, get your computer, put it back in it's box, take it back to the shop and give it them back and tell them you've made a mistake and are actually too stupid to own it. Posted by Slykllist
Again as mentioned earlier, I never said I've (nor have I) been beaten in this scenario. You too, obviously have a reading, understanding (and judging how you composed your hillarious comment) writing problem!
In Response to Re: Automatic Disqualification : Again as mentioned earlier, I never said I've (nor have I) been beaten in this scenario. You too, obviously have a reading, understanding (and judging how you composed your hillarious comment) writing problem! Posted by ecakapug11
Hey!
I'm the only one here who gets to criticise writing
In Response to Automatic Disqualification : This is a wind up right????? If you can't beat an away player, get your computer, put it back in it's box, take it back to the shop and give it them back and tell them you've made a mistake and are actually too stupid to own it. Posted by Slykllist
THis is the WORST advice I've seen you give TBH. I mean who on earth keeps the box from their pooter? ;-))
In Response to Automatic Disqualification : This is a wind up right????? If you can't beat an away player, get your computer, put it back in it's box, take it back to the shop and give it them back and tell them you've made a mistake and are actually too stupid to own it. Posted by Slykllist
In Response to Re: Automatic Disqualification : Again as mentioned earlier, I never said I've (nor have I) been beaten in this scenario. You too, obviously have a reading, understanding (and judging how you composed your hillarious comment) writing problem! Posted by ecakapug11
So let me get this straight. You've never been beaten by an away player, yet you believe an away player is gaining an unfair advantage by being away? Hmm... makes sense
In Response to Re: Automatic Disqualification : Again as mentioned earlier, I never said I've (nor have I) been beaten in this scenario. You too, obviously have a reading, understanding (and judging how you composed your hillarious comment) writing problem! Posted by ecakapug11
So let me get this straight. You've never been beaten by an away player, yet you believe an away player is gaining an unfair advantage by being away? Hmm... makes sense
Please explain why you are complaining about away players if you have not been affected by them. I just can't fathom why it would be a bad thing. 1 thing you need to understand is that someone buying in to a tournament and not playing is NOT cheating, the person is well within there rights to do that if they want as they have paid their entry fee the same as the other players. The only way of cheating at online poker is to agree a strategy of some sort with one or more players from which someone will gain a direct advantage, barring that a player can do pretty much whatever they want.
In Response to Re: Automatic Disqualification : THis is the WORST advice I've seen you give TBH. I mean who on earth keeps the box from their pooter? ;-)) Posted by Glenelg
everybody does, don't they. They form a nice little pyramid in the corner. and you always end up having to send something back so pretty useful too. i'm sure a family of mice live there as well. Where do your mice live?
This is a suggestion to sky poker in relation to poker playing etiquette and player community. I think sky poker should introduce some sort of automatic disqualification for players who enter sit & go games and then sit out for it entirety in the hope of at least cashing out. It is unfair, dissappointing and certainly a point of contention with many "Fair Play" poker players. It certainly is not good gaming etiquette and I would love to hear skypokers view point, stance & possible solutions for what could be described as "cheating" Posted by ecakapug11
Hi ecakapug.
Well your idea does not seem to have been very well received, & you've had a bit of a bashing. I'll give my take shortly, just my honest personal opinion, & a few facts.
But first up, I have a question for you.
I have a bit of a fixation with players screen-names, & I try to figure out how they were arrived at. "tikay" is simple, it's phonetic for my initials. "MattBates" is the blokes name, "Macacgirl" is named after a burger (she loves food), & so on.
But whatever way I look at your screen name, I can't figure what it means. I tried it backwards - "gupakace" which did not work, & I just can''t figure what it might mean.
Care to, as Rory Breaker famously said, enlighten us?
This is a suggestion to sky poker in relation to poker playing etiquette and player community. I think sky poker should introduce some sort of automatic disqualification for players who enter sit & go games and then sit out for it entirety in the hope of at least cashing out. It is unfair, dissappointing and certainly a point of contention with many "Fair Play" poker players. It certainly is not good gaming etiquette and I would love to hear skypokers view point, stance & possible solutions for what could be described as "cheating" Posted by ecakapug11
OK, here goes.
I'm a bit of a stickler for "etiquette", in poker, always have been, but no, this is not, in any way, shape or form, poor etiquette.
Sky Poker should disqualify them? Well that's not a decision for me, but I'll eat my proverbial hat if they ever considered that. Why would they?
In by FAR the majority of cases - I'd say in excess of 99% - players permanently "AWAY" in SNG's are not sitting out deliberately, there will be another reason - usually, they have forgotten that they registered for it, or have connection issues. So they get punished already, by losing their buy-in. Be a bit of a nasty rub to auto-disqualify them as well, & there are NO RULES (or Etiquette) which forbades sitting out, be it deliberate, or otherwise, & this applies in both Live Poker & Online Poker.
Sitting out in the hope of cashing? They'd be nuts to think that made sense. At a guess, permanent sit-outs cash around 5% of the time at the very max. As we need to cash 40% or 50% of the time to be profitable in SNG's, that boat don't float. In a DYM, for example, with 4 left including a sit-out, the other players soon suss the situation, & in most (but not all) cases, they play accordingly. Mostly, we all get free equity.
Sky Poker response? I don't think they'll respond, as there is no case to answer, & no solution necessary to a problem that does not exist. There is no advantage whatsoever to deliberately sitting out.
I'll actually turn the whole thing upside down now, & do the Charlie Munger "obverse" thinking thing.
I feel sorry for guys who are, for no deliberate reason, sat out during the entirety of a SNG. It's patently obvious they would not do it deliberately (crimes need a motive - there is no motive here, as they lose 95% of the time). So when I see a player blinded away, it does not exactly fill me with pleasure. I want their money, yes, of course I do, but I'd far rather win it fairly.
I am sorry you got bashed up a bit by some of the lads, but, to be fair, the notion that the AWAY players should be disqualified is a somewhat eccentric one. IMO, of course. I can't think of a single poker site that would disqualify them in such cases. How would they know if the fella was genuinely "AWAY" but might re-connect or remember 4 or 5 Levels in, & join the game?
It would be a dreadful injustice to disquaify them, & no, it is not bad etiquette.
So there you go, that's my opinion - I think you are mistaken.
I just don't understand why it troubles you. Feel free to retort, as this chap said.
I saw something which I hadn't seen before in Dubkin recently. It's kind of along the lines of 'sitting out'
There was a much, much bigger turn out than expected. Unlike Dtd where chips are in play from the start, your chips were in play from when you arrived. A fair few of registered players for the tournament were still absent a couple of hours in.
With a huge list of players waiting to play as alternates, the decision was made to dereg all the players who hadn't arrived.
It was announced that they would definitely get to play but would have to join the list of waiting players.
Comments
i have a spare sense of humour if anyone is in need of one.
I'm the only one here who gets to criticise writing
You're still wrong, however you slice it.
Well your idea does not seem to have been very well received, & you've had a bit of a bashing. I'll give my take shortly, just my honest personal opinion, & a few facts.
But first up, I have a question for you.
I have a bit of a fixation with players screen-names, & I try to figure out how they were arrived at. "tikay" is simple, it's phonetic for my initials. "MattBates" is the blokes name, "Macacgirl" is named after a burger (she loves food), & so on.
But whatever way I look at your screen name, I can't figure what it means. I tried it backwards - "gupakace" which did not work, & I just can''t figure what it might mean.
Care to, as Rory Breaker famously said, enlighten us?
You may begin.
I'm a bit of a stickler for "etiquette", in poker, always have been, but no, this is not, in any way, shape or form, poor etiquette.
Sky Poker should disqualify them? Well that's not a decision for me, but I'll eat my proverbial hat if they ever considered that. Why would they?
In by FAR the majority of cases - I'd say in excess of 99% - players permanently "AWAY" in SNG's are not sitting out deliberately, there will be another reason - usually, they have forgotten that they registered for it, or have connection issues. So they get punished already, by losing their buy-in. Be a bit of a nasty rub to auto-disqualify them as well, & there are NO RULES (or Etiquette) which forbades sitting out, be it deliberate, or otherwise, & this applies in both Live Poker & Online Poker.
Sitting out in the hope of cashing? They'd be nuts to think that made sense. At a guess, permanent sit-outs cash around 5% of the time at the very max. As we need to cash 40% or 50% of the time to be profitable in SNG's, that boat don't float. In a DYM, for example, with 4 left including a sit-out, the other players soon suss the situation, & in most (but not all) cases, they play accordingly. Mostly, we all get free equity.
Sky Poker response? I don't think they'll respond, as there is no case to answer, & no solution necessary to a problem that does not exist. There is no advantage whatsoever to deliberately sitting out.
I'll actually turn the whole thing upside down now, & do the Charlie Munger "obverse" thinking thing.
I feel sorry for guys who are, for no deliberate reason, sat out during the entirety of a SNG. It's patently obvious they would not do it deliberately (crimes need a motive - there is no motive here, as they lose 95% of the time). So when I see a player blinded away, it does not exactly fill me with pleasure. I want their money, yes, of course I do, but I'd far rather win it fairly.
I am sorry you got bashed up a bit by some of the lads, but, to be fair, the notion that the AWAY players should be disqualified is a somewhat eccentric one. IMO, of course. I can't think of a single poker site that would disqualify them in such cases. How would they know if the fella was genuinely "AWAY" but might re-connect or remember 4 or 5 Levels in, & join the game?
It would be a dreadful injustice to disquaify them, & no, it is not bad etiquette.
So there you go, that's my opinion - I think you are mistaken.
I just don't understand why it troubles you. Feel free to retort, as this chap said.