In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : Yes, I'm sure if someone wins a Vegas package, they will be turning in their sleep in their king size bed within a 5* hotel/casino complex at the thought they have paid a ''stealth rake'' to get there. +1 to what Geldy says. And if you bink a package from the lowest rung of the sat ladder, you personally only pay rake once Posted by hhyftrftdr
that is simply not the case, harry. effectively you will pay rake 4 times.
or put it another way, if you enter at the lowest level and qualify through to win a vegas package, given the chances of doing so the value of the package should be £14,641. However, you win a package valued at £10,000. In effect, the balance of £4,641 is the rake that you have paid.
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : that is simply not the case, harry. effectively you will pay rake 4 times. or put it another way, if you enter at the lowest level and qualify through to win a vegas package, given the chances of doing so the value of the package should be £14,641. However, you win a package valued at £10,000. In effect, the balance of £4,641 is the rake that you have paid. Posted by aussie09
I qualified for Spt Nottingham from a direct sat. It was £12 + (I think) 1.
I believe that I paid £1 in rake to qualify for a £200+20 tournament. Are you going to tell me that I'm wrong again?
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : I qualified for Spt Nottingham from a direct sat. It was £12 + (I think) 1. I believe that I paid £1 in rake to qualify for a £200+20 tournament. Are you going to tell me that I'm wrong again? Posted by Jac35
jac
i never said you were wrong. i never said that you were incorrect.
do you think that you only paid £1 in rake to earn a £220 seat?
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : jac i never said you were wrong. i never said that you were incorrect. do you think that you only paid £1 in rake to earn a £220 seat? Posted by aussie09
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : jac i never said you were wrong. i never said that you were incorrect. do you think that you only paid £1 in rake to earn a £220 seat? Posted by aussie09
But you win the rake for the next stage 2.40 20p is rake = 11 quid mtt so your 1 pound rake is part of the previous tourneys prize Posted by stuarty117
I get what Aussie is saying, as obvs Sky still get the rake for all the sat levels you win.
But if you win your way up from the bottom, you personally are only liable for the first rake you pay.
to win your £220 seat from £12(?) you probably won a 1-in-5 game and qualified into a 1-in-5 qualifier and then won. i guess, the final would have been £48 (£44+£4) and the qualifier into that would have been £9.60 (£8.80+£0.80). You got there spending £9.60...i guess. And only paid 80p in rake. Excellent. I think I did the same.
you won a £200 seat and you won a further £20 in rake. you could have cashed out. Whatever you chose, you effectively paid £20 in rake.
I was gonna post similar to Geldy but he's beat me to it.
I never understand this multiple rake arguement, yes it's technically true, but in practical terms it isn't really.
Fwiw, as far as I know you can BI direct to all of the VLV stages (I haven't tried the £1k final yet though). These are all essentially stand alone MTTs. Personally I always BI direct to the target tournament in advance, even if I don't want to take the cash, it's good to know that I have the option for various reasons... power cut, internet goes down, family emergency etc. and when you do that, it's much easier to see it that way, as a group of stand alone tournaments.
If you play the £17 VLV sat, you BI, you play the game, and the prize money is 5x your BI (minus rake) - £77, the tournament ends and you are given £77 cash.
If you want to enter the £77 game, that's up to you, it's a new game, charging rake again because you are entering a completely different MTT, but you're also free to just take the £77 that you won by playing in the earlier MTT.
It's a matter of opinion I guess, but to make out like satellites are really bad and stealth raking doesn't make any sense to me. Poker's a very selfish game, who cares if the total rake being taken is £X, if you can get into the £110 Roller for an average satellite outlay of £60, that's a great spot, it effectively almost doubles your ROI in the Roller in comparison to buying in direct.
Every single good player who knows how to play sats well is making a masssively +EV decision to play satellites for something like this. Long term all the good players will be getting a package far cheaper than the value of the package. Does it matter if the total rake taken is £X, not really, and that rake is spread across that thousands of people who took part in all of the satellites, not just the winner... you don't win a £33 main event on Sky and think 'I just won £1500 but god they took £1000 in rake, haven't I been shafted'. All that matters is can you play these games and make a decent return on your investment, and you can.
to win your £220 seat from £12(?) you probably won a 1-in-5 game and qualified into a 1-in-5 qualifier and then won. i guess, the final would have been £48 (£44+£4) and the qualifier into that would have been £9.60 (£8.80+£0.80). You got there spending £9.60...i guess. And only paid 80p in rake. Excellent. I think I did the same. you won a £200 seat and you won a further £20 in rake. you could have cashed out. Whatever you chose, you effectively paid £20 in rake. Posted by aussie09
and then...
consider the chances. 25 players pay £9.60 gives a total of £240. for a £200 seat. this means that £40 is taken as rake. it has to come from somewhere. if the 24 others paid 80 pence, you must have paid the rest. that is £20.80.
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : Yes What am I missing here? Posted by Jac35
Jac
I am pro sat's FwIW
Yes, from your bankroll you personally pay £1 for arguments sake. But what Aussie is correctly saying is that if there was 20 runners, all paid £12, one in 20 win (prize pool £220, rake £20 for sky). You win, your prize is £220 of which you give £20 to sky and take a seat. Had you cashed out, you win £220. So sky gets £40 or 20% rake overall. Hence why sat grinders do well as they pay only the one rake as take cash out option. Sky do not loose out to them as still get 10% but do not get the additional say £20 in your example.
I like you agree sat's are great and best way to get in on the £ value, ok not best % whose but never been to the bank and paid in a %
I do not mind how a company makes it's money as long as I get value for money, and a sat certainly is that!
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : and then... consider the chances. 25 players pay £9.60 gives a total of £240. for a £200 seat. this means that £40 is taken as rake. it has to come from somewhere. if the 24 others paid 80 pence, you must have paid the rest. that is £20.80. Posted by aussie09
Yes but we all know full well we have to pay rake on tournaments, and we know this prior to playing the event or a satellite.
Alternatively the prize money for the satellite above could be that Jac only gets £220 in cash instead of £240. But the tournament he wants to play is £220 + £20, he needs to add £20 of his own money to it to play, but he knows that, he's trying to play a tournament where the rake is £20. So he's paid the 80p rake in his satellite, + the £20 rake on the tournament which he knew he was going to have to pay, everyone does, you pay it if you BI direct, you pay it if you satellite in.
I was gonna post similar to Geldy but he's beat me to it. I never understand this multiple rake arguement, yes it's technically true, but in practical terms it isn't really. Fwiw, as far as I know you can BI direct to all of the VLV stages (I haven't tried the £1k final yet though). These are all essentially stand alone MTTs. Personally I always BI direct to the target tournament in advance, even if I don't want to take the cash, it's good to know that I have the option for various reasons... power cut, internet goes down, family emergency etc. and when you do that, it's much easier to see it that way, as a group of stand alone tournaments. If you play the £17 VLV sat, you BI, you play the game, and the prize money is 5x your BI (minus rake) - £77, the tournament ends and you are given £77 cash. If you want to enter the £77 game, that's up to you, it's a new game, charging rake again because you are entering a completely different MTT, but you're also free to just take the £77 that you won by playing in the earlier MTT. It's a matter of opinion I guess, but to make out like satellites are really bad and stealth raking doesn't make any sense to me. Poker's a very selfish game, who cares if the total rake being taken is £X, if you can get into the £110 Roller for an average satellite outlay of £60, that's a great spot, it effectively almost doubles your ROI in the Roller in comparison to buying in direct. Every single good player who knows how to play sats well is making a masssively +EV decision to play satellites for something like this. Long term all the good players will be getting a package far cheaper than the value of the package. Does it matter if the total rake taken is £X, not really, and that rake is spread across that thousands of people who took part in all of the satellites, not just the winner... you don't win a £33 main event on Sky and think 'I just won £1500 but god they took £1000 in rake, haven't I been shafted'. All that matters is can you play these games and make a decent return on your investment, and you can. Posted by Lambert180
yes, and i see and agree with all paul.
the issue that i have written about is the new rule preventing buy-in at certain levels. once buy-in is prevented then choice is removed and effectively you are locked into a multilayered, multi-rake tournament.
if there was no such rule (inability to buy-in) there is choice and no problem.
there is a problem. you cannot buy-in at certain levels, therefore you cannot cash-out. this means that you are locked in and everyone forced to pay compound rake.
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : and then... consider the chances. 25 players pay £9.60 gives a total of £240. for a £200 seat. this means that £40 is taken as rake. it has to come from somewhere. if the 24 others paid 80 pence, you must have paid the rest. that is £20.80. Posted by aussie09
Could this just not be simplified by removing the word 'satellite' from the calculation?
I pay 80p rake for a tournament where I can win £200.
Then I can choose to use that £200 winnings, plus £20 rake, to enter a £200 tournament where I may win £xx (or other related prize).
So then how are satellites worse than normal tournaments?
FWIW if the maths earlier in the thread was correct, you'd then question why people are grinding satellites for cash as obviously TommyD/MattBates etc cannot profit from them, even with their considerable edge over the field. Only they do profit for them... so there must be a flaw in the maths?
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : Could this just not be simplified by removing the word 'satellite' from the calculation? I pay 80p rake for a tournament where I can win £200. Then I can choose to use that £200 winnings, plus £20 rake, to enter a £200 tournament where I may win £xx (or other related prize). So then how are satellites worse than normal tournaments? FWIW if the maths earlier in the thread was correct, you'd then question why people are grinding satellites for cash as obviously TommyD/MattBates etc cannot profit from them, even with their considerable edge over the field. Only they do profit for them... so there must be a flaw in the maths? Posted by shakinaces
hi shaky,
as you say, if you can choose to cash out and take your £220 seat then all is fine.
satelites are only worse when you can't buy-in and cash-out. with this rule we all pay compound rake. without this rule all is normal.
the maths is correct. and it is this exact point i make and is the very reason why tommy and matt do not readily play multi-layered tournaments from a micro level.
they will play qualifiers but four layers of qualifiers presents them with a question. can they overcome a 46% edge? i believe that they can overcome a one (11%) or two layer edge (21%) but a three layer (33%) is probably not worth it as other options are more profitable.
Interesting article and even more interesting forum debate haha!
At first I didn't have a clue what Aussie was on about and Lambert's post was spot on. But then Aussie's recent post clarified it... sort of. But I'm still not sure what's the problem - and if there's a solution to said supposed problem anyway.
The Vegas semi-final has a BI of £1k which you can't BI to direct. This isn't just an intentional ploy from Sky to stop people taking the cash - of course, they need to get enough runners to meet the guarantee, so it does help them. But since there's only 5 seats on offer, if they allow anyone to enter the £1k final (not that I imagine there's an awful lot of people on sky willing to put up £1k to do so!) then they would get increased numbers in the final and have more money in the pot than seats to give away which means they have to think of a way to distribute the remaining cash (Although, surely the ONLY option in that case is to give 6th place cash up to value of £10k seat, then 7th (if there's still money left over) the same and so on...)
So, we pay rake twice to get the package - but is there any other way? Rake has to be paid so I guess it's a question of how much: One could argue maybe we should only have to pay 5% rake in the Semi-final. But then that is only going to serve to punish the recreational players that have sat in for three fiddy - since a 5% rake in the semi's is going to attract a bigger number of regulars.
Plus, with more people entering the semi's, Sky might have the same problem of too many people in the final with not enough packages on offer.
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : true, but reg's play these satellites for cash because they're profitable to do so. Imagine if they had no rake/less rake - even more regs would end up playing these satellites for cash and that is neither good for the rec players or for sky who are wanting to give away the 5 packages. Posted by F_Ivanovic
This is a completely different point, the point people are making is that there are a lot of hidden charges going on, trying to take that extra cut of the rec without them knowing.
In Response to Re: The Price of Poker : This is a completely different point, the point people are making is that there are a lot of hidden charges going on, trying to take that extra cut of the rec without them knowing. Posted by bolly580
I think most rec's will appreciate that they are paying extra rake, it's transparently stated in the lobby for the online games (versus the 'hidden' cost at live events discussed in the OP)
But they will also appreciate that they are playing extra tournaments in exchange for that (they play 4+ tournaments, why shouldn't they play 4+ lots of rake?)
I don't see what the counter option would be - Sky should offer rake-free satellites such that the only time you pay rake is in the final?
the main point of this thread was the problem where the % in rake is not clear when only x amount is stated as a buy in
derailing this thread is so Sky....
FWIW re all this accumalted rake or w/e - are you suggesting we do not have step sats - ? The whole point of them is so someone can sat in for an amount they can afford, so each step has to be raked for entries at the level.
The whole point of sats is to not cash out, you win seats - to be able to cash out devoids the tourament because it's not a MTT with a flat structure - it's a sat
If anyone can come up with a better system then I am all ears.
Comments
that is simply not the case, harry. effectively you will pay rake 4 times.
or put it another way, if you enter at the lowest level and qualify through to win a vegas package, given the chances of doing so the value of the package should be £14,641. However, you win a package valued at £10,000. In effect, the balance of £4,641 is the rake that you have paid.
jac
i never said you were wrong. i never said that you were incorrect.
do you think that you only paid £1 in rake to earn a £220 seat?
But if you win your way up from the bottom, you personally are only liable for the first rake you pay.
to win your £220 seat from £12(?) you probably won a 1-in-5 game and qualified into a 1-in-5 qualifier and then won. i guess, the final would have been £48 (£44+£4) and the qualifier into that would have been £9.60 (£8.80+£0.80). You got there spending £9.60...i guess. And only paid 80p in rake. Excellent. I think I did the same.
you won a £200 seat and you won a further £20 in rake. you could have cashed out. Whatever you chose, you effectively paid £20 in rake.
I never understand this multiple rake arguement, yes it's technically true, but in practical terms it isn't really.
Fwiw, as far as I know you can BI direct to all of the VLV stages (I haven't tried the £1k final yet though). These are all essentially stand alone MTTs. Personally I always BI direct to the target tournament in advance, even if I don't want to take the cash, it's good to know that I have the option for various reasons... power cut, internet goes down, family emergency etc. and when you do that, it's much easier to see it that way, as a group of stand alone tournaments.
If you play the £17 VLV sat, you BI, you play the game, and the prize money is 5x your BI (minus rake) - £77, the tournament ends and you are given £77 cash.
If you want to enter the £77 game, that's up to you, it's a new game, charging rake again because you are entering a completely different MTT, but you're also free to just take the £77 that you won by playing in the earlier MTT.
It's a matter of opinion I guess, but to make out like satellites are really bad and stealth raking doesn't make any sense to me. Poker's a very selfish game, who cares if the total rake being taken is £X, if you can get into the £110 Roller for an average satellite outlay of £60, that's a great spot, it effectively almost doubles your ROI in the Roller in comparison to buying in direct.
Every single good player who knows how to play sats well is making a masssively +EV decision to play satellites for something like this. Long term all the good players will be getting a package far cheaper than the value of the package. Does it matter if the total rake taken is £X, not really, and that rake is spread across that thousands of people who took part in all of the satellites, not just the winner... you don't win a £33 main event on Sky and think 'I just won £1500 but god they took £1000 in rake, haven't I been shafted'. All that matters is can you play these games and make a decent return on your investment, and you can.
consider the chances. 25 players pay £9.60 gives a total of £240. for a £200 seat. this means that £40 is taken as rake. it has to come from somewhere. if the 24 others paid 80 pence, you must have paid the rest. that is £20.80.
Alternatively the prize money for the satellite above could be that Jac only gets £220 in cash instead of £240. But the tournament he wants to play is £220 + £20, he needs to add £20 of his own money to it to play, but he knows that, he's trying to play a tournament where the rake is £20. So he's paid the 80p rake in his satellite, + the £20 rake on the tournament which he knew he was going to have to pay, everyone does, you pay it if you BI direct, you pay it if you satellite in.
the issue that i have written about is the new rule preventing buy-in at certain levels. once buy-in is prevented then choice is removed and effectively you are locked into a multilayered, multi-rake tournament.
if there was no such rule (inability to buy-in) there is choice and no problem.
there is a problem. you cannot buy-in at certain levels, therefore you cannot cash-out. this means that you are locked in and everyone forced to pay compound rake.
I pay 80p rake for a tournament where I can win £200.
Then I can choose to use that £200 winnings, plus £20 rake, to enter a £200 tournament where I may win £xx (or other related prize).
So then how are satellites worse than normal tournaments?
FWIW if the maths earlier in the thread was correct, you'd then question why people are grinding satellites for cash as obviously TommyD/MattBates etc cannot profit from them, even with their considerable edge over the field. Only they do profit for them... so there must be a flaw in the maths?
hi shaky,
as you say, if you can choose to cash out and take your £220 seat then all is fine.
satelites are only worse when you can't buy-in and cash-out. with this rule we all pay compound rake. without this rule all is normal.
the maths is correct. and it is this exact point i make and is the very reason why tommy and matt do not readily play multi-layered tournaments from a micro level.
they will play qualifiers but four layers of qualifiers presents them with a question. can they overcome a 46% edge? i believe that they can overcome a one (11%) or two layer edge (21%) but a three layer (33%) is probably not worth it as other options are more profitable.
The Vegas semi-final has a BI of £1k which you can't BI to direct. This isn't just an intentional ploy from Sky to stop people taking the cash - of course, they need to get enough runners to meet the guarantee, so it does help them. But since there's only 5 seats on offer, if they allow anyone to enter the £1k final (not that I imagine there's an awful lot of people on sky willing to put up £1k to do so!) then they would get increased numbers in the final and have more money in the pot than seats to give away which means they have to think of a way to distribute the remaining cash (Although, surely the ONLY option in that case is to give 6th place cash up to value of £10k seat, then 7th (if there's still money left over) the same and so on...)
So, we pay rake twice to get the package - but is there any other way? Rake has to be paid so I guess it's a question of how much: One could argue maybe we should only have to pay 5% rake in the Semi-final. But then that is only going to serve to punish the recreational players that have sat in for three fiddy - since a 5% rake in the semi's is going to attract a bigger number of regulars.
Plus, with more people entering the semi's, Sky might have the same problem of too many people in the final with not enough packages on offer.
But they will also appreciate that they are playing extra tournaments in exchange for that (they play 4+ tournaments, why shouldn't they play 4+ lots of rake?)
I don't see what the counter option would be - Sky should offer rake-free satellites such that the only time you pay rake is in the final?
derailing this thread is so Sky....
FWIW re all this accumalted rake or w/e - are you suggesting we do not have step sats - ?
The whole point of them is so someone can sat in for an amount they can afford, so each step has to be raked for entries at the level.
The whole point of sats is to not cash out, you win seats - to be able to cash out devoids the tourament because it's not a MTT with a flat structure - it's a sat
If anyone can come up with a better system then I am all ears.