Could you not argue that Sky is standing still by finding around 1,000 new players each month (which must be quite difficult), but losing a similar number by running an unattractive tournament schedule?
lol,
you might argue too that every site has a hole in their bucket.
silly for all not to top up their bucket. the size of the top up is important, the size of the hole is important too.
it might be that sky poker's hole isn't as big as others.
it might be that the hole would be enlarged by having an less attractive schedule.
isn't there is a proven correlation between BHs and attractiveness?
I would not claim to know anything very much. I am not that bothered about bounty hunters or not. I would like to see more value for money, bigger tournaments in the evening, and during the day on weekends. There are questions regularly asked on the forum regarding the number of bounty hunters on the schedule. This position is regularly defended by a smallish number of players claiming some knowledge, based on alleged evidence. I was merely asking questions to test the veracity of this evidence. I don't think it is enough to just say more players play bounty hunters. I play bounty hunters because of a lack of options. Sky have had a tournament schedule that has been dominated by bounty hunters for the last few years. So is it not fair to suggest that, those players that are left playing on Sky, are new players, those that like bounty hunters, and those that are prepared to play whatever Sky has to offer because they like playing on Sky. Those that don't particularly like bounty hunters, or just don't like bounty hunters all the time, have escaped through the hole in the bucket. Therefore it is not very surprising that you can say, when comparing the number of runners playing a couple of minis, that more people played the bounty hunter minis than the freezeout minis. I would accept this as proof, without considering the buy ins, the days there were played on, or the guarantees. All of which will affect the number of entries. How could this be a surprise. If the Sky schedule had contained an overwhelming number of freezeouts for the last few years, and very few bounty hunters, the bounty hunter players would have escaped through the hole in the bucket, and the result of the little mini survey would be the other way around. Maybe more people play bounty hunters because of a lack of choice available, and that is what they have become used to. Maybe many players are being are being lost through the hole in the bucket every month, because of this lack of choice. The only thing I could guarantee is that more players will be popping up, asking why so many bounty hunters, before very long. I would imagine that the biggest difficulty is the attraction of new players. The percentage of the new players that are retained is surely determined by the variety of the games on offer, and the focus on a single type of tourney is detrimental to this.
I would not claim to know anything very much. I am not that bothered about bounty hunters or not. I would like to see more value for money, bigger tournaments in the evening, and during the day on weekends. There are questions regularly asked on the forum regarding the number of bounty hunters on the schedule. This position is regularly defended by a smallish number of players claiming some knowledge, based on alleged evidence. I was merely asking questions to test the veracity of this evidence. I don't think it is enough to just say more players play bounty hunters. I play bounty hunters because of a lack of options. Sky have had a tournament schedule that has been dominated by bounty hunters for the last few years. So is it not fair to suggest that, those players that are left playing on Sky, are new players, those that like bounty hunters, and those that are prepared to play whatever Sky has to offer because they like playing on Sky. Those that don't particularly like bounty hunters, or just don't like bounty hunters all the time, have escaped through the hole in the bucket. Therefore it is not very surprising that you can say, when comparing the number of runners playing a couple of minis, that more people played the bounty hunter minis than the freezeout minis. I would accept this as proof, without considering the buy ins, the days there were played on, or the guarantees. All of which will affect the number of entries. How could this be a surprise. If the Sky schedule had contained an overwhelming number of freezeouts for the last few years, and very few bounty hunters, the bounty hunter players would have escaped through the hole in the bucket, and the result of the little mini survey would be the other way around. Maybe more people play bounty hunters because of a lack of choice available, and that is what they have become used to. Maybe many players are being are being lost through the hole in the bucket every month, because of this lack of choice. The only thing I could guarantee is that more players will be popping up, asking why so many bounty hunters, before very long. I would imagine that the biggest difficulty is the attraction of new players. The percentage of the new players that are retained is surely determined by the variety of the games on offer, and the focus on a single type of tourney is detrimental to this.
yes, agree.
ps. i don't think it was me who talked about minis.
When I joined sky I was amazed at the amount of bounty hunters in the schedule. It was certainly far more than any other site I had played on. Time and time again I have tried various non bounties in the schedule. To name a few, Gold Rush (non bh), Iceman and Mini Iceman, Reload (non bh), Super Rebuy, Dealer stealer. Avenger (non Bh). Every time we had to reduce the guarantee and then either cancel it altogether or make it a bounty hunter. It's basic demand and supply, certainly not through us not wanting variety in the schedule.
When I joined sky I was amazed at the amount of bounty hunters in the schedule. It was certainly far more than any other site I had played on. Time and time again I have tried various non bounties in the schedule. To name a few, Gold Rush (non bh), Iceman and Mini Iceman, Reload (non bh), Super Rebuy, Dealer stealer. Avenger (non Bh). Every time we had to reduce the guarantee and then either cancel it altogether or make it a bounty hunter. It's basic demand and supply, certainly not through us not wanting variety in the schedule.
99% of us understand this, just a couple of stragglers that are struggling
When I joined sky I was amazed at the amount of bounty hunters in the schedule. It was certainly far more than any other site I had played on. Time and time again I have tried various non bounties in the schedule. To name a few, Gold Rush (non bh), Iceman and Mini Iceman, Reload (non bh), Super Rebuy, Dealer stealer. Avenger (non Bh). Every time we had to reduce the guarantee and then either cancel it altogether or make it a bounty hunter. It's basic demand and supply, certainly not through us not wanting variety in the schedule.
I don't see the point in blaming anyone. We are where we are, and it doesn't really matter how we got there. I cant even remember all the tournaments changing from freezeouts to bounty hunters. You have shown that it is possible to attract players for big games of either format, but do you think that the current schedule makes it difficult to retain the new players and therefore grow the site?
the only thing left to agree is attractiveness but that will always be subjective.
Attractiveness is always in the eye of the beholder. All evidence points to bounty hunters being the most popular tournaments. The popularity of bounty hunters has led to an extremely unbalanced schedule. Despite finding a substantial number of new players each month, there doesn't seem to be any increase in the numbers playing any of the major tournaments. Maybe the new players look elsewhere for a less boring schedule, or perhaps some of the less new players finally give up on the hope of any change and also look elsewhere. Perhaps it is normal in the online poker world to have to find 1,000 new players per month in order to stand still, but it just seems excessive.
I don't think the introduction of a £5 freezeout into the schedule, would be anywhere near enough to encourage new players to continue to play on the site. To get up tomorrow, do exactly the same thing, and expect a different result is foolish. Surely a plan to retain more of the new players is required.
looking at the last five days this year and last,there doesn't seem to be to much difference aussie,apart from the rebuy tournie. the starting numbers last year were more 4 days to 1
looking at the last five days this year and last,there doesn't seem to be to much difference aussie,apart from the rebuy tournie. the starting numbers last year were more 4 days to 1
yes, not much difference. i did that work for haysie really. he was of the opinion that numbers had decreased and asked specifically about the main event.
the past 5 days the number of main entrants has been... 261, 242, 244, 270 and 545 (264 + 281 rebuys) = 1,562
the same 5 days last year, monday to friday... 300, 203, 287, 344 and 309 (150 + 159 rebuys) = 1,443
8.2% up this year on the comparable 5 day period last year
If you take out the Friday which is the only one that has shown strong growth in the last year, it then becomes a substantial loss. I am not just trying to make it look bad. The Friday is obviously the exception rather than the rule. Is the reason that it is a rebuy, a bounty hunter, or played on Friday. The other 4 nights represent around a 10% loss. The 4 nights are a very small snapshot, but you would surely question why after recruiting many thousands of new players, that the result was a loss of runners. The other thing that is obvious is that the statement about there being more players in the Winter than Summer is patently not true.
the past 5 days the number of main entrants has been... 261, 242, 244, 270 and 545 (264 + 281 rebuys) = 1,562
the same 5 days last year, monday to friday... 300, 203, 287, 344 and 309 (150 + 159 rebuys) = 1,443
8.2% up this year on the comparable 5 day period last year
If you take out the Friday which is the only one that has shown strong growth in the last year, it then becomes a substantial loss. I am not just trying to make it look bad. The Friday is obviously the exception rather than the rule. Is the reason that it is a rebuy, a bounty hunter, or played on Friday. The other 4 nights represent around a 10% loss. The 4 nights are a very small snapshot, but you would surely question why after recruiting many thousands of new players, that the result was a loss of runners. The other thing that is obvious is that the statement about there being more players in the Winter than Summer is patently not true.
i can give up now. i have been trying to help with numbers.
if you feel that things are still less attractive than they were then that's perfectly ok. you did ask for specifics and i spent time doing that work for you.
i think the best thing is to "embrace the new normal". you are a superb player. far better than me. if only i could persuade you to recalibrate your game to match today's environment. you would clean up.
Comments
lol,
you might argue too that every site has a hole in their bucket.
silly for all not to top up their bucket. the size of the top up is important, the size of the hole is important too.
it might be that sky poker's hole isn't as big as others.
it might be that the hole would be enlarged by having an less attractive schedule.
isn't there is a proven correlation between BHs and attractiveness?
how are you determining attractiveness?
the only thing left to agree is attractiveness but that will always be subjective.
I am not that bothered about bounty hunters or not.
I would like to see more value for money, bigger tournaments in the evening, and during the day on weekends.
There are questions regularly asked on the forum regarding the number of bounty hunters on the schedule.
This position is regularly defended by a smallish number of players claiming some knowledge, based on alleged evidence.
I was merely asking questions to test the veracity of this evidence.
I don't think it is enough to just say more players play bounty hunters. I play bounty hunters because of a lack of options.
Sky have had a tournament schedule that has been dominated by bounty hunters for the last few years.
So is it not fair to suggest that, those players that are left playing on Sky, are new players, those that like bounty hunters, and those that are prepared to play whatever Sky has to offer because they like playing on Sky.
Those that don't particularly like bounty hunters, or just don't like bounty hunters all the time, have escaped through the hole in the bucket.
Therefore it is not very surprising that you can say, when comparing the number of runners playing a couple of minis, that more people played the bounty hunter minis than the freezeout minis. I would accept this as proof, without considering the buy ins, the days there were played on, or the guarantees. All of which will affect the number of entries.
How could this be a surprise. If the Sky schedule had contained an overwhelming number of freezeouts for the last few years, and very few bounty hunters, the bounty hunter players would have escaped through the hole in the bucket, and the result of the little mini survey would be the other way around.
Maybe more people play bounty hunters because of a lack of choice available, and that is what they have become used to.
Maybe many players are being are being lost through the hole in the bucket every month, because of this lack of choice.
The only thing I could guarantee is that more players will be popping up, asking why so many bounty hunters, before very long.
I would imagine that the biggest difficulty is the attraction of new players. The percentage of the new players that are retained is surely determined by the variety of the games on offer, and the focus on a single type of tourney is detrimental to this.
yes, agree.
ps. i don't think it was me who talked about minis.
Every time we had to reduce the guarantee and then either cancel it altogether or make it a bounty hunter. It's basic demand and supply, certainly not through us not wanting variety in the schedule.
here's a suggestion.
2 minis every night
one a freezeout, one a BH
both count in the jackpot
99% of us understand this, just a couple of stragglers that are struggling
Shouldn't you just worry about your Kemosahbi, and Scout.
We are where we are, and it doesn't really matter how we got there.
I cant even remember all the tournaments changing from freezeouts to bounty hunters.
You have shown that it is possible to attract players for big games of either format, but do you think that the current schedule makes it difficult to retain the new players and therefore grow the site?
To get up tomorrow, do exactly the same thing, and expect a different result is foolish.
Surely a plan to retain more of the new players is required.
that's not necessarily correct.
here is a quick illustration of key measures of the top 100 players in major tournaments.
that's not necessarily correct.
here is a quick illustration of key measures of the top 100 players in major tournaments.
Perhaps I should have been more specific.
Are the number of runners in the main events increasing at all.
the past 5 days the number of main entrants has been...
261, 242, 244, 270 and 545 (264 + 281 rebuys) = 1,562
the same 5 days last year, monday to friday...
300, 203, 287, 344 and 309 (150 + 159 rebuys) = 1,443
8.2% up this year on the comparable 5 day period last year
yes, not much difference. i did that work for haysie really. he was of the opinion that numbers had decreased and asked specifically about the main event.
The other 4 nights represent around a 10% loss.
The 4 nights are a very small snapshot, but you would surely question why after recruiting many thousands of new players, that the result was a loss of runners.
The other thing that is obvious is that the statement about there being more players in the Winter than Summer is patently not true.
i can give up now. i have been trying to help with numbers.
if you feel that things are still less attractive than they were then that's perfectly ok. you did ask for specifics and i spent time doing that work for you.
i think the best thing is to "embrace the new normal". you are a superb player. far better than me. if only i could persuade you to recalibrate your game to match today's environment. you would clean up.
good luck.