+1 to Tommy. Also without regs who have qualified playing sats the liquidity would simply not be there. These regs who have qualified give recreational players more opportunities to get a seat by virtue of more games running. DevilTear, Your opinion satellites are for the purpose of making the buy in cheaper for recreational players is just an illusion. We don't live in a poker utopia whereby everyone can get into these events cheap via satellites, Sky need to make their money back on these sats so people will always have to lose out for someone to win. The reality is recreational players are going to be losing money playing sats long term because they simply are not as skilled as their opposition. Sats are there for recs to have a fun game of poker and every now and again they get a shot at a big tournament without putting up the whole sum of the buy in. Really they will have overpaid for that seat by losing money in the satellite process. But that's okay as long as they have fun, not everyone plays the game for profit. There is nothing wrong with good players grinding satellites they have an edge in for profit. They have to put up the buy in just like everyone else. Also I'm sure you have no qualms busting the rec satellite qualifiers in the event itself, your crushing the dream of the big bink just like the satellite grinders Posted by FeelGroggy
Ok I get it... We're all just dream crushers, and aspiring dream crushers
I feel like I opened up pandoras box with this post!
@Tommy i'm totally against people being vilified for playing within the rules. So if this happening to you i'm sorry to hear.
@Graham Good post as ever, basically said what I wanted to in a better way
I actually now respect both sides of this discussion nowadays. Strange, but true.
Couple of food for points though.
Taken from the latest UKOPS day two blog...
As things panned out, the £15,000 Main Event missed by 8 entries,
So lets just break that down more. Sky Poker put a £15gtd tournament on which only missed by 8. However, there were at least 8 players who qualified at least twice for it. If Sky now reduce that guarantee in the future, who will be the first ones to 'complain' about it?
A Happy Meduim?
How about putting sats on for a target event after it has started and restricting them to players who are not already in it? No guarantee of a seat if it misses the qualifying amount, and just cash won if it does miss. These would enable regs/recs to participate and increase the seat count.
All sites are endorsing sats for a cash ATM, but some are actually looking to improve them for recs instead of the regs.
You carnt please all of the people all of the time, and you defiantly carnt please all poker players ever.
In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event? : Offering seats to women on buses is wrong, cos it means they then spend allday on their backsides. Posted by chilling
I have actually lost count of how many mysoginistic and sexist statements you have come out with on the forum, I guess they are in jest and you thinks its just fun, personally I think its awful.
I actually now respect both sides of this discussion nowadays. Strange, but true. Couple of food for points though. Taken from the latest UKOPS day two blog... As things panned out, the £15,000 Main Event missed by 8 entries, So lets just break that down more. Sky Poker put a £15gtd tournament on which only missed by 8. However, there were at least 8 players who qualified at least twice for it. If Sky now reduce that guarantee in the future, who will be the first ones to 'complain' about it? A Happy Meduim? How about putting sats on for a target event after it has started and restricting them to players who are not already in it? No guarantee of a seat if it misses the qualifying amount, and just cash won if it does miss. These would enable regs/recs to participate and increase the seat count. All sites are endorsing sats for a cash ATM, but some are actually looking to improve them for recs instead of the regs. You carnt please all of the people all of the time, and you defiantly carnt please all poker players ever. (I knew I should not have commented) Posted by MAXALLY
The point has been made that sats wouldn't run without the regs playing for cash so not sure of the relevance
As an old stager who does not use this site much anymore, I think that this subject has been more divisive than any other over the years. There is something that just does not sit right with many recs with those who enter sats having already qualified and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Just as there is rightful indignation from many regs when challenged about this. My view is that although it is legal, fair and reasonable and accepting all the financial arguements detailed by Tommy, Rob and others, the thing that is hardest to put a value on is "how much has it changed the personality of the site"
In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event? : The point has been made that sats wouldn't run without the regs playing for cash so not sure of the relevance Posted by MattBates
The only answer for that is....
MAXALLY220001Entry to UKOPS 12 | £5,000 Bounty Hunter + As you have already registered/qualified for this event you have been awarded the cash equivalent of £22, which is equal to the Buy-in and Fee.
In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event? : The only answer for that is.... MAXALLY 22000 1 Entry to UKOPS 12 | £5,000 Bounty Hunter + As you have already registered/qualified for this event you have been awarded the cash equivalent of £22, which is equal to the Buy-in and Fee. Posted by MAXALLY
I would consider myself to be a rec. (Definitely was after a night out in Truro last night!) player, but I will always try and win extra cash by playing in sats. if I have already qualified for a major tourney, coz it provides me with extra money to play more sats. if I'm successful.
Last week I was fortunate enough to win a Fun Forum comp. with which I played the 'ICEMAN' Freezeout tourney. I also managed to sat. into the tourney thru the 6pm semi so won £33. I've used this money unsuccessfully today, trying to qualify for tonight's UKOPS 25K Main event, which I had already qualified for too. So I've provided at least one extra seat for someone to play in an event which, had I not been allowed to enter, wouldn't have been available.
Certainly last year with the UKPC sats., if those that had already qualified, not been allowed to play the sats., most of them wouldn't have gone ahead at all.
I also enjoy playing with likes of TommyD, MattBates, Feelgroggy, DogBloke, GSmith13, ChicknMelt and the others, and watching and learning...
I can see why they are +ev for regs, but then by definition the regs are playing +ev poker. Funny that the better players win more games.
I can see why recs might feel aggrieved if they do not qualify and a reg wins cash as they have already qualified, however I do not blame regs for doing so, or feel aggrieved myself. If the regs didnt play they wouldnt run or would definitely offer far fewer seats,
Sats can be +ev for recs when there is overlay. I entered a PLO UKOPs semi which had 5 seats and only 10 entrants. I won a seat and then qualified for the next semi (via 65p all-in sat) which had 3 seats and 11 entrants but still overlay. I won another "seat" and pocketed £55 cash. I was pretty happy at that point. I think it was my 2nd all-in sat so for £12.30 I have qualified for a £55 tournament and I am already £42.70 in profit
As with any form of poker, keep track of your own results to see if they are +EV. If they are not then find the games that suit you better and work on your own game to improve.
what is this cashing you all mention? Posted by MICKYBLUE
If you qualify for a tournament or buy in to it, if you enter a satellite tournament targetting the one you have bought into/qualified for..... you get the cash equivalent of the tournament entry if you manage to qualify again
Comments
They were arguing it wasn't nice and was just being sexist for a man to offer his seat to a woman on the bus.
So your post made me laugh more than it should have lol
I feel like I opened up pandoras box with this post!