To be honest I wouldn't want to pay even £250 for an iphone 6. Quite happy with the rubbish phone I have, does the job I need it too!! So definitely wouldn't have been willing to pay up to £400 or more in rake just to win the iphone.
In Response to Re: FAO Sky, Sng Promotion : Yeah Alvez Most of the guys would have barely covered the cost of a phone anyway, once your play starts becoming losing, its really not worth the effort Posted by alex1229
£5-£600 worth of rake required to win an iphone 6 thats worth £600. Would the two regs that decided to take this approach never apply for the Apprentice. They would instantly get fired for having no business brain. Go on Ebay and get one for cash imo if you are that desperate. This is even before we look at how they run vs EV.
In Response to Re: FAO Sky, Sng Promotion : 2 people mutually deciding to play RR can not in any shape be considered collusion!! Also paying off each other to balance losses would be stupid/needless since it's a zero sum game for them both minus the rake anyway. Also, as for RR being banned in future promo's - again I don't see the need. These are losing players. Sky should reward them for putting in volume even if it is in a game of chance. Hopefully it will encourage them to keep on playing on sky - which is exactly what the regular players want! Posted by F_Ivanovic
Phantom don't think we could ever call this collusion!
Sweeping statement F_I, if you are talking about scope (ive not looked) if they are "losing" it will be due to the RR Games played during promos such as the one above. They are both regular's and highly doubt either is alosing player.
In Response to Re: FAO Sky, Sng Promotion : 2 people mutually deciding to play RR can not in any shape be considered collusion!! Also paying off each other to balance losses would be stupid/needless since it's a zero sum game for them both minus the rake anyway. Also, as for RR being banned in future promo's - again I don't see the need. These are losing players. Sky should reward them for putting in volume even if it is in a game of chance. Hopefully it will encourage them to keep on playing on sky - which is exactly what the regular players want! Posted by F_Ivanovic
It's not a zero sum game if you are both guaranteed to win the prize for the points race and the prize is worth more than the rake paid.
Yeah i dont think anyone can suggest any sort of wrong doing has been done, if they were to have set up a ton of RR's together then is that colluding? or is that just using an edge the same way most people look for an edge in poker? i guess its completely dependant how you look at it.
What i would say though is that from 11pm onwards i wanted to play some high stake RR games just to guarantee i had won but they just wasnt running or spawning so i thought they had been discontinued, only later did i see that 2 players had been auto regging every one of them so that i was unable to play them even if i wanted to.
in the terms and conditions it states...
Sky Poker reserves the right to withhold or withdraw a bonus from a customer where we reasonably believe that such customer is abusing or defrauding the promotion.
while it certainly isnt absuing or defrauding the company in any way at all, it certainly defrauded the other players who were looking to make the top 5, as if i could have just been able to play 5 high stakes RR's i would have locked up 5th spot.. In
In Response to Re: FAO Sky, Sng Promotion : 2 people mutually deciding to play RR can not in any shape be considered collusion!! Also paying off each other to balance losses would be stupid/needless since it's a zero sum game for them both minus the rake anyway. Also, as for RR being banned in future promo's - again I don't see the need. These are losing players. Sky should reward them for putting in volume even if it is in a game of chance. Hopefully it will encourage them to keep on playing on sky - which is exactly what the regular players want! Posted by F_Ivanovic
It 100% makes sense for 2 people to do exactly this, it just limits risk to 0. If you know it's gonna cost £400 in rake to win the phone and you really wanna do that (I wouldn't personally cos it's still joke expensive for a phone imo) then you don't want the risk it could actually cost you £800.
Shakin is prob referring to me. I did RRs for a UKPC promo, which in hindsight was stupid but it was still a +EV proposition long term. In the end I finished almost dead on break even after winning the £1k seat + £500 spending money when I got the RB. However, I skoped myself and ran £500 below EV, and it wasn't a particularly small sample, it's vvv easily done. If I'd have done the same thing but agreed to cover losses with someone else I'd have been a lock to finish +£500 from the promo no matter what, instead of taking the chance of maybe being +£600,700,800 etc or (in this case) break even. Some would argue I was lucky to not make a loss, but then I'd have had to run even more insanely under EV than I already did.
Yeah i dont think anyone can suggest any sort of wrong doing has been done, if they were to have set up a ton of RR's together then is that colluding? or is that just using an edge the same way most people look for an edge in poker? i guess its completely dependant how you look at it. What i would say though is that from 11pm onwards i wanted to play some high stake RR games just to guarantee i had won but they just wasnt running or spawning so i thought they had been discontinued, only later did i see that 2 players had been auto regging every one of them so that i was unable to play them even if i wanted to. in the terms and conditions it states... Sky Poker reserves the right to withhold or withdraw a bonus from a customer where we reasonably believe that such customer is abusing or defrauding the promotion. while it certainly isnt absuing or defrauding the company in any way at all, it certainly defrauded the other players who were looking to make the top 5, as if i could have just been able to play 5 high stakes RR's i would have locked up 5th spot.. In Posted by jordz16
Whilst not strictly collusion, playing RRs is clearly an attempt to abuse the promotion, as well as discriminating against the majority of the players on skypoker.
Nearly all lower stakes players ( which sky aim at and state are the backbone of online poker) get excluded from these promos as they never have the bankroll for them.
As already alluded to, sky are making a shedload of rake from this and the RR players are losing/paying a shedload of rake so sky couldn't care less about everybody else
Good poont jordz. I remember reading that T+C when the Punta Cana promo race was put up. I thought: surely playing as many 2p/4p tables as possible and just playing super nitty would lock up the promo. IMO that method would be abusing the promotion since you aren't playing your normal game and you are affecting other players because those playing 2p/4p would get seriously annoyed at you timing out all the time. Unfortunatey Sky didn't see it this way and believed it was perfectly fair to do that. It's rather ambigious then what can be classed as abusing/defrauding a promotion. I got their answer 3 days in so I was too late to really try this anyway given how people had already been doing it.
@ Lambert: It reduces variance and if you don't have the BR for it then yeah I guess it makes sense. But one way isn't any more +ev than other - you could just as easily lose nothing as £800 thus it just adds un-neccesarily complications (plus it then becomes collusion/chip dumping? (although hard/impossible to prove)
@ Larson: I wasn't reffering to any player in particular although I did look at one for curiosity and saw that they were indeed a losing player. I was more pointing out the fact that you can't win money in RR.
If you want to take the gamble of playng them to try and win a promo then good luck to you. If enough people did this then it becomes even less profitable to do so - since you have to play more games to try and win it and even then with more people doing so you have less chance of being a lock to win it. So you might end up losing £400 in rake on avg and only win the iphone 6 20% of the time. That's a HUGE -EV proposition.
Comments
Sweeping statement F_I, if you are talking about scope (ive not looked) if they are "losing" it will be due to the RR Games played during promos such as the one above. They are both regular's and highly doubt either is alosing player.
while it certainly isnt absuing or defrauding the company in any way at all, it certainly defrauded the other players who were looking to make the top 5, as if i could have just been able to play 5 high stakes RR's i would have locked up 5th spot..
In
Shakin is prob referring to me. I did RRs for a UKPC promo, which in hindsight was stupid but it was still a +EV proposition long term. In the end I finished almost dead on break even after winning the £1k seat + £500 spending money when I got the RB. However, I skoped myself and ran £500 below EV, and it wasn't a particularly small sample, it's vvv easily done. If I'd have done the same thing but agreed to cover losses with someone else I'd have been a lock to finish +£500 from the promo no matter what, instead of taking the chance of maybe being +£600,700,800 etc or (in this case) break even. Some would argue I was lucky to not make a loss, but then I'd have had to run even more insanely under EV than I already did.
If you want to take the gamble of playng them to try and win a promo then good luck to you. If enough people did this then it becomes even less profitable to do so - since you have to play more games to try and win it and even then with more people doing so you have less chance of being a lock to win it. So you might end up losing £400 in rake on avg and only win the iphone 6 20% of the time. That's a HUGE -EV proposition.