How about trying some anonymous tables and limit too 2/3 tables at a time would help smaller players build up some confidence and knowledge without just getting destroyed by people playing 20+ tables Sure these would fill quite easily and may get some more people playing cash. Would also stop the regs just waiting on weaker players as others have said. Posted by churchy18
In Response to Re: Spin Up Cash Tables : Sure, we are a business and we are able to fund the site via rake (on cash tables) but we firmly believe that we'll grow the site by providing games that people like and will come back to - amongst other things we do. There's a very good chance that people will work a strategy to do better in these games. It is a different format to normal games and so requires a different way of playing. They may also be softer than regular games too. Time will tell. Posted by Sky_Poker
Just one thing to add... Someone asked if these tables were capped - no they are not. As people build up stacks it makes for an interesting dynamic and the game could become deeper. Posted by Sky_Poker
Have to say didnt realise that initially. Sat at a £0.50/£1 table and pot sizes where getting quite big. Interesting dynamic with large and short stacks at the table.
A lot of players play a 'spin it up' kind of game anyway. I play cash on another site and always buy-in short looking to double or treble.
Some fairly great players started the same way. For instance back in the day when poker first came about, Scotty77 would often sit min stacked and I believe this is where he learnt the best places to shove.
I am all in favour of anything that changes the game up a bit.
Instead of gimmicks like this which probably wont interest recs why dont SKY think of adding Zoom, Rush, Snap type tables?
As a bona fide rec who only really plays for a couple of hours a night a few times a week I dont want to sit at cash tables for hours on end "grinding" it out. I know the cash pureist wouldnt want them but I actually play these more than regular cash tables as I find it more enjoyable as there is more action.
Of course SKY would have to look at its rake structure and we all know that is something they refuse to do.........
Instead of gimmicks like this which probably wont interest recs why dont SKY think of adding Zoom, Rush, Snap type tables? As a bona fide rec who only really plays for a couple of hours a night a few times a week I dont want to sit at cash tables for hours on end "grinding" it out. I know the cash pureist wouldnt want them but I actually play these more than regular cash tables as I find it more enjoyable as there is more action. Of course SKY would have to look at its rake structure and we all know that is something they refuse to do......... Posted by dabossman
+1 But seeing as it is a struggle for the software to be able to let you do basic things such as save up tournament tokens, I doubt it is anywhere near good enough to be able to manage something like this.
I wouldnt play these tables myself but I think its not a bad idea and I dont think its fair comparing them to capped games. Thats comparing marmite to lemon curd.
I also dont think It would not crowd the lobby. (let me compare them to capped briefly) when capped tables start you only see one table, till its full, then the 2nd table appears as empty, the Spinning games could do this.
There is room across the top of the filters...
CappedFree Play If it spinning games make people dizzy, they dont have to select them. Debate over IMHO.
Certainly not a new addition. I remember when sky introduced these a couple of years ago and they didn't last long. In regards to the debate of having them I guess we'll have to see whether they are popular or not. ATM it looks like only two tables run per level which I believe is probably the right balance for anyone wanting to play them without having more spawning and clogging up the site.
Certainly not a new addition. I remember when sky introduced these a couple of years ago and they didn't last long. In regards to the debate of having them I guess we'll have to see whether they are popular or not. ATM it looks like only two tables run per level which I believe is probably the right balance for anyone wanting to play them without having more spawning and clogging up the site. Posted by Curt360x27
Think your getting these confused curt. The ones sky had a few years back where capped but with a limit of something like 10bb. These tables are not capped, as your stack grows you can in theory win a lot more than 10bb in one hand. Ive seen a player spin up to 100bb on a 1/2 table.
If rake was changed for these tables and you couldn't spin them up I think they would be fun for a laugh. However, it is really no fun whatsoever to be sandwiched in between a short stack with another big stack if the short stack player knows what they are doing.
With rake structure the same, it's also going to be next to impossible to make a profit because the edges in short stack poker are so minimal. Which means reg's won't play them and that just leaves REC's that might enjoy them. Ajs isn't just being selfish when he talks about this but he's right - 6 rec's playing each other on these tables is no good for the REC's (or sky either) - OK, they might get more enjoyment out of them but because the rake is so high their money will potentially disappear quicker than if they were sat with a bunch of REG's.
Will these be pushed in terms of promos - ie whoever generates the biggest (or X biggest) single spin-up each month wins a prize, to tempt people into having a couple of gos in spite of it not being +EV to play in isolation?
Highest spin-up can get £100 and a seat at the Tuesday night MC table playing the studio guests as a loose (spin-up) cannon
Re: the comments about Zoom variants... that works ace on the biggest networks, but I've tried playing on some smaller skins and it is just useless without a decent size player pool. At a push it may work at NL4 level here at peak times, but would imagine that the rest of the time it'd struggle to even fully fill a couple of tables (if that) and you'd end up just playing the same faces anyway... maybe one that Sky hold fire on while they continue to expand the player pool?
A lot of players play a 'spin it up' kind of game anyway. I play cash on another site and always buy-in short looking to double or treble. Some fairly great players started the same way. For instance back in the day when poker first came about, Scotty77 would often sit min stacked and I believe this is where he learnt the best places to shove. I am all in favour of anything that changes the game up a bit. Posted by MrWh1te
Short-stacking is great, always thought this is a good way for newcomers to start playing cash as it (mostly) removes post-flop play and lets you get a good grasp for pre-flop play and position... (unfortunately I never subsequently graduated to the level of Scotty77!!)
...but for both the short-stacker and the full buy-in reg this would be better at 100bb tables.
Just played a bit of these at the 25p/50p blind level. They are crazy! But good fun. You certainly need to flip/run well. I lost 3 or 4 buyins first time then won it back plus a bit more on my 2nd table. Could be fun later tonight
I believe these games to be dangerous for a gambler,who has say had problems with roulette machines etc in the past.oh il just put 5.00 on,then top your account up.I believe capped games are safer,than open cash tables also.
I also believe sky should make it possible to only be able to go into tournaments if they so wish on their accounts and bar only cash where need be.
This is not for myself but I know sky will let you self exclude for 24 hours etc but you should be able to state you only wish to go in tournaments to what value you can afford and bar if need me of cash games.
I believe these games to be dangerous for a gambler,who has say had problems with roulette machines etc in the past.oh il just put 5.00 on,then top your account up.I believe capped games are safer,than open cash tables also.
I also believe sky should make it possible to only be able to go into tournaments if they so wish on their accounts and bar only cash where need be.
This is not for myself but I know sky will let you self exclude for 24 hours etc but you should be able to state you only wish to go in tournaments to what value you can afford and bar if need me of cash games.
I was playing this over the weekend, it's fun with lots of action and money to be made. It;s good for recreational players, and thats what we need more of.
Grinders arnt worth as much to poker sites as they used to be, the days of massive rakeback is gone. Who actually puts the money into the poker eco system in the first place? Yup that right, fish/recreational players. So why are all you nits slating it? Without the lure of fun, quick games Poker will become even more of a nitty/borefest then it is.
I was playing this over the weekend, it's fun with lots of action and money to be made. It;s good for recreational players, and thats what we need more of. Grinders arnt worth as much to poker sites as they used to be, the days of massive rakeback is gone. Who actually puts the money into the poker eco system in the first place? Yup that right, fish/recreational players. So why are all you nits slating it? Without the lure of fun, quick games Poker will become even more of a nitty/borefest then it is. Posted by alex1229
Hi again Alex
Thanks for your positive feedback, much appreciated and we're glad you're enjoying the new tables.
Comments
I play cash on another site and always buy-in short looking to double or treble.
Some fairly great players started the same way. For instance back in the day when poker first came about, Scotty77 would often sit min stacked and I believe this is where he learnt the best places to shove.
I am all in favour of anything that changes the game up a bit.
I also dont think It would not crowd the lobby. (let me compare them to capped briefly) when capped tables start you only see one table, till its full, then the 2nd table appears as empty, the Spinning games could do this.
There is room across the top of the filters...
CappedFree Play
If it spinning games make people dizzy, they dont have to select them. Debate over IMHO.
Will these be pushed in terms of promos - ie whoever generates the biggest (or X biggest) single spin-up each month wins a prize, to tempt people into having a couple of gos in spite of it not being +EV to play in isolation?
Highest spin-up can get £100 and a seat at the Tuesday night MC table playing the studio guests as a loose (spin-up) cannon
Re: the comments about Zoom variants... that works ace on the biggest networks, but I've tried playing on some smaller skins and it is just useless without a decent size player pool. At a push it may work at NL4 level here at peak times, but would imagine that the rest of the time it'd struggle to even fully fill a couple of tables (if that) and you'd end up just playing the same faces anyway... maybe one that Sky hold fire on while they continue to expand the player pool?
...but for both the short-stacker and the full buy-in reg this would be better at 100bb tables.