the standard on most other sites, which all have antes, are 15-18%, some as high as 20%.
Is this just another way to spread the prize pool further? If we pay 10% of the runners in a Sky bounty hunter, we are paying half the prize pool to 10% of the runners, the other half going on the heads. If in a non bounty hunter, another site is paying double the prize pool, to double the players, is this not maybe an attempt to spread the prize pool further. This argument is often used to explain the popularity of bounty hunters. The fact that you don't have to cash, to recoup some money, and therefore the prize pool is spread further.
I haven't read all 6 pages of replies, but I'm pretty sure the answer to this question is 'supply and demand'. The Bounty Hunter format has always been popular and successful here. Sky Poker have tried hard to promote other types of tournaments over the years, but there simply wasn't enough demand to sustain them in most cases.
In my opinion Sky Poker have led the way. The knockout format here, which used to be unique, has now been copied by numerous other online poker providers including the market leader.
I haven't read all 6 pages of replies, but I'm pretty sure the answer to this question is 'supply and demand'. The Bounty Hunter format has always been popular and successful here. Sky Poker have tried hard to promote other types of tournaments over the years, but there simply wasn't enough demand to sustain them in most cases.
In my opinion Sky Poker have led the way. The knockout format here, which used to be unique, has now been copied by numerous other online poker providers including the market leader.
The mtt players currently playing on Sky, can only be, those that like bounty hunters, and those that like playing on Sky and are prepared to put up with the unbalanced schedule. I don't think it is possible to argue against this. If you were a big freezeout fan, or thought that a variety of tournaments was a priority to you, you would surely be playing elsewhere. The danger of this position is that it can never change. The new mtt players you attract will stay if they like bounty hunters, and probably leave if they are looking for a variety, or prefer freezeouts. There are a number of players that would much prefer a variety, which is why the question that opened this thread gets asked on a regular basis. James revealed in his comments his failed attempts to introduce successful tourneys that were not bounty hunters, and seemed to say that he thought a variety would be advantageous. I am not blaming James, and am not clever enough to know the solution. It wouldn't seem good business to regularly attract new players, only to lose them fairly quickly through their unhappiness with the schedule, and maybe lose some existing players who just became fed up with it.
You only see things through your own logic. Players leave so you decide it is down to the schedule when there are loads of reasons players will stop playing MTTs on sky.
You say there are a number of players that want variety which is based on those that post on the forum which is a small % of those that play on the site. When sky have introduced games based on the views of this minority the numbers aren't there in these games.
Sky have all the data so can analyse trends and understand about retention of players and seasonal trends. They have and will continue to try different things if they seem popular, historically when trying non bh games they have not been popular and end up dropping out of the schedule.
You only see things through your own logic. Players leave so you decide it is down to the schedule when there are loads of reasons players will stop playing MTTs on sky.
I appreciate that some people will argue with a signpost. It is logical to expect that you will argue with any post that I make, because you always have. Logic is logic and doesn't belong to anyone. As the Sky mtt schedule includes an overwhelming number of bounty hunters, compared to freezeouts, it would seem logical to think that any mtt player new to Sky is likely to stay if he was a bounty hunter fan, but not if he were inclined towards freezeouts, or a variety of tournaments. This is logic, not my logic, just logic. James said in his comments that he was AMAZED at the number of bounty hunters on Sky, and lamented his attempts at trying to provide more variety and balance to the schedule. If you disagree with this, maybe you should tell James, or argue about his logic.
You say there are a number of players that want variety which is based on those that post on the forum which is a small % of those that play on the site. When sky have introduced games based on the views of this minority the numbers aren't there in these games.
The same question gets asked regularly. If you run a completely imbalanced schedule in favour bounty hunters, then the future becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The only players you will be left with in the long term are bounty hunter players. Any attempts at introducing freezeouts will be logically doomed to fail.
Sky have all the data so can analyse trends and understand about retention of players and seasonal trends. They have and will continue to try different things if they seem popular, historically when trying non bh games they have not been popular and end up dropping out of the schedule.
Historically, when I first started playing on Sky there were far more players in the main events, without a bounty hunter in sight. I appreciate times have changed, and am not dead against bounty hunters. I think more of a variety would be more exciting. I cant remember when it happened but the schedule has changed from 100% freezeouts to almost 100% bounty hunters. With hindsight this was probably not a great idea. It is also logical that if Sky had decided to change to Omaha instead of bounty hunters, then all the holdem players would have faced a choice of switching to Omaha or playing elsewhere. If you attempted a few years later to launch a few holdem tournaments you would be likely to fail because all your players would be Omaha players.
After reading your last post I am starting to think you are on a wind up. "With hindsight changing from freezeout to bounty hunters not a great idea". Not sure how or what reason you could possibly have for that statement. Sky where ahead of the curve re bh and are one of the few sites growing and attracting new players. Maybe it is the why only bounty hunters posts once or twice a year ? Following on from your bizarre statement above then you try to make a comparison between omaha and holdem . Popularity wise an omaha site mainly would last about a week.
After reading your last post I am starting to think you are on a wind up. "With hindsight changing from freezeout to bounty hunters not a great idea". Not sure how or what reason you could possibly have for that statement.
The introduction of bounty hunters was obviously a good thing to do. What I am saying is that to change the schedule to almost 100% bounty hunters probably wasn't a good idea. The reason I am saying this is that here we are, some years later, seemingly with no hope of adjusting the schedule. Whereas, had a reasonable number of bounty hunters been introduced, and a reasonable number of freezeouts retained, then we would have today a much more balanced schedule. James comments on this thread state that he was amazed at the number of bounty hunters there were in the Sky mtt schedule. He wasn't merely surprised, or shocked, he was amazed. He also commented about his attempts to introduce more variety to the schedule. Why on earth would he do this if he didn't think it was needed?
Sky where ahead of the curve re bh and are one of the few sites growing and attracting new players. Maybe it is the why only bounty hunters posts once or twice a year ?
How many other sites have turned over just about their whole schedule to bounty hunters? I am not sure about your increasing numbers, as the numbers playing the tournaments I play are pretty much constant. Aussie quoted earlier that were almost 1200 new players last month. I haven't got a clue, but if that was an average month, that would mean over 14,000 new players per year, without seriously affecting the number of runners in the main tournaments. I would love to see Sky growing, more players, and bigger prize pools.
Following on from your bizarre statement above then you try to make a comparison between omaha and holdem . Popularity wise an omaha site mainly would last about a week.
This was an analogy. If you have a site that has just about 100% bounty hunters on the tournament schedule, if you try to introduce tournaments that aren't bounty hunters, you are likely to fail because all your players have only played bounty hunters for a number of years.
After reading your last post I am starting to think you are on a wind up. "With hindsight changing from freezeout to bounty hunters not a great idea". Not sure how or what reason you could possibly have for that statement. Sky where ahead of the curve re bh and are one of the few sites growing and attracting new players. Maybe it is the why only bounty hunters posts once or twice a year ? Following on from your bizarre statement above then you try to make a comparison between omaha and holdem . Popularity wise an omaha site mainly would last about a week.
You haven't been letting Matt Bates post on your log in have you?
''I am not sure about your increasing numbers, as the numbers playing the tournaments I play are pretty much constant. Aussie quoted earlier that were almost 1200 new players last month. I haven't got a clue, but if that was an average month, that would mean over 14,000 new players per year, without seriously affecting the number of runners in the main tournaments. I would love to see Sky growing, more players, and bigger prize pools''
What games do you play Haysie? All the mains? The £55s? The £22s? Some £11s?
If a site attracted 1200 new players in a month, what %age would you expect to start jumping into £22+ games? 1%?
You are so short sighted its unreal, and you are nigh on impossible to debate or reason with because of this.
Bounty hunters are popular, hence the schedule being geared towards them. It really is as simple as that. Digest those words, read them twice (or more) if you need to.
I hope those perusing this thread are taking the numbers quoted with a pinch of salt, though I'm sure most are.
Some of the numbers quoted are disinformation or fake news at its best.
".....1200 new players last month. I haven't got a clue, but if that was an average month, that would mean over 14,000 new players per year....."
If you were to divide those numbers by 10, they'd still be wrong, but not by anything like as much. No poker site in the UK would be able to claim such numbers. In fact, the entire UK & RoI facing Online Poker market cannot claim 14,000 new players per annum. That's how far out those numbers are.
My apologies, I was repeating the figures quoted earlier in this thread of the number of players new to major tournaments which was quoted as around 1200 for the month of September, and near enough the same for October. I must apologise if the figures are wrong, I had no wish to mislead anyone.
''I am not sure about your increasing numbers, as the numbers playing the tournaments I play are pretty much constant. Aussie quoted earlier that were almost 1200 new players last month. I haven't got a clue, but if that was an average month, that would mean over 14,000 new players per year, without seriously affecting the number of runners in the main tournaments. I would love to see Sky growing, more players, and bigger prize pools''
What games do you play Haysie? All the mains? The £55s? The £22s? Some £11s?
If a site attracted 1200 new players in a month, what %age would you expect to start jumping into £22+ games? 1%?
I don't really know. I suppose that may depend on whether they were brand new, or had been playing elsewhere. If they had been playing elsewhere, it would depend on what level they were playing at. We do attract players from elsewhere for the big buy in games on a regular basis.
You are so short sighted its unreal, and you are nigh on impossible to debate or reason with because of this.
I am not sure if you know what a coherent argument is, Tonto.
Bounty hunters are popular, hence the schedule being geared towards them. It really is as simple as that. Digest those words, read them twice (or more) if you need to.
I didn't know they were popular, thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it.
This could have been a really short thread. It could have been the original question, why so many bounty hunters? Then you could have said, cos they are popular. End of.
There's been a lot of interesting points put across on the topic, The majority view seems to be people like bounty hunters,and that bounty hunter mtts are getting more popular by the day.
So ime guessing sky are going to keep on the bounty hunter schedule, the only downside of that is,now that bounty hunters are getting so popular,and other sites are running more bounty hunter mtts all the the time, can sky compete with them ?
The reason I ask is bounty hunters are Sky's bread and butter,and if you like a site with a mostly bounty hunter schedule sky is the place to play,at the moment,
But with other sites now starting to run so many bounty hunters ,prob a lot with more runners/bigger gtds ,having a schedule that is so bounty hunter laden, might stop sky from bringing more players onboard in the future,as soon players will have a choice to play a bounty hunter schedule on their current site,or almost any other site.
Not easy to get a schedule balance right .,glad its not my job to try it.
i am a little miffed that it could be inferred that my figures are fake news.
i try to be precise in my language when presenting the numbers. you will see that there have been 1,165 players new to major tournaments in october and 1,199 in september.
not one of these people have played a major tournament before, with records going back to 2010 and covering 33,400 major tournaments played.
major tournaments are those with (a) guarantee over £500, (b) buy-in above £3, and (c) no fewer than 20 entrants. if any player never plays one they will not appear in my numbers. however, they will appear once they do.
i am a little miffed that it could be inferred that my figures are fake news.
i try to be precise in my language when presenting the numbers. you will see that there have been 1,165 players new to major tournaments in october and 1,199 in september.
not one of these people have played a major tournament before, with records going back to 2010 and covering 33,400 major tournaments played.
major tournaments are those with (a) guarantee over £500, (b) buy-in above £3, and (c) no fewer than 20 entrants. if any player never plays one they will not appear in my numbers. however, they will appear once they do.
It's not that your figures are fake news Rob, I don't doubt for one moment they are correct. It's how they are interpreted.
You made it quite clear that the "new players" were new to a variety of MTT's. This was interpreted as new to Sky Poker, which is a very different thing.
It seems to have escaped the notice of this thread that MTT's, in their entirety, only account for around one sixth of Online Poker Traffic. Another One sixth play SNG's, & the rest - some two thirds of the entire Online Poker revenue, comes from Cash Games. So when discussing the effect of MTT's on Sky Poker, it needs to be viewed in context.
One reason I have tried to stay away from commenting on this thread is that I'd get caught in a time & space lop from which I'd never escape, & so I only posted reluctantly last night, & now I wish I had not, as the last thing I wanted to do was upset you, & imply or suggest your data is inaccurate. Apologies if you thought I was taking a swipe at you. I was not.
I think I had better demonstrate why the two figures* are completely different.
*The 2 figures are;
"New to Rob's criteria, which is to SPECIFIC MTT's only"
"New to Sky Poker"
Before looking at this, please remember we are completely ignoring Cash Game play. In theory, a player could have been here for years playing cash games but appear as "new" (to a specific range of MTT's) in Rob's figures.
Please note all my stats come from Sharkscope, which is not always accurate. However, the figures I am going to show can be checked by any of you in a matter of seconds. I have zero access to Sky Poker's "back office" data.
If we look at Rob's Top 8 "New to Sky Poker Major Tournaments September 2017";
eamernem is seen on Sharksope to have small cashes in SNG's or MTT's (but outside Robs remit) as long ago as January 2016, some 1 year & 9 month months earlier.
Big_NF ditto, January 2017, some 8 months earlier. davimg ditto, August 2017, a month earlier.
If we look at Rob's top 8 in October;
ChrisbmC ditto, June 2016, 1 year & 5 months earlier.
BWats, ditto, June 2013, 4 years & 5 months earlier
113magpies, ditto, August 2013, 4 years & 2 months earlier Mazagran, ditto, February 2015, 2 years & 9 months earlier.
We don't know, of course, if any of these players played cash at an earlier date. Some of them are bound to have, though I would not like to estimate the number.
Nothing I have seen (though I did not particularly check) suggests Rob's analysis is incorrect. Remember, Rob clearly defined his criteria of "new to Sky Poker".
It was the interpretation of those numbers that was completely incorrect, & why, against my better wishes, I felt obliged to post on the thread to correct the disinformation that had been interpreted from those numbers & was being quoted & repeated frequently.
When incorrect stuff is posted on the internet, there is always SOMEONE who believes it, & once something is on the internet, it can never be erased, it remains there for ever.
Personally, I prefer to "sense-check" the numbers. Whenever in life I see a number that looks odd, I sense-check it.
In short, some of these players have been with Sky Poker for, literally, years.
There's been a lot of interesting points put across on the topic, The majority view seems to be people like bounty hunters,and that bounty hunter mtts are getting more popular by the day.
So ime guessing sky are going to keep on the bounty hunter schedule, the only downside of that is,now that bounty hunters are getting so popular,and other sites are running more bounty hunter mtts all the the time, can sky compete with them ?
The reason I ask is bounty hunters are Sky's bread and butter,and if you like a site with a mostly bounty hunter schedule sky is the place to play,at the moment,
But with other sites now starting to run so many bounty hunters ,prob a lot with more runners/bigger gtds ,having a schedule that is so bounty hunter laden, might stop sky from bringing more players onboard in the future,as soon players will have a choice to play a bounty hunter schedule on their current site,or almost any other site.
Not easy to get a schedule balance right .,glad its not my job to try it.
The majority of sky's MTT player base will be UK based players who have to work in the morning so want to be finished playing at a reasonable time so they are not going to want to play on $ sites where games take a lot longer to run if they have work early in the morning.
It seems to have escaped the notice of this thread that MTT's, in their entirety, only account for around one sixth of Online Poker Traffic. Another One sixth play SNG's, & the rest - some two thirds of the entire Online Poker revenue, comes from Cash Games. So when discussing the effect of MTT's on Sky Poker, it needs to be viewed in context.
remembering too, that when two-thirds of revenue is derived from cash it neither means that two-thirds play cash, nor that two-thirds of play is cash.
Comments
most MTTs here pay 10%, with a few 15%.
the standard on most other sites, which all have antes, are 15-18%, some as high as 20%.
Is this just another way to spread the prize pool further?
If we pay 10% of the runners in a Sky bounty hunter, we are paying half the prize pool to 10% of the runners, the other half going on the heads.
If in a non bounty hunter, another site is paying double the prize pool, to double the players, is this not maybe an attempt to spread the prize pool further.
This argument is often used to explain the popularity of bounty hunters. The fact that you don't have to cash, to recoup some money, and therefore the prize pool is spread further.
In my opinion Sky Poker have led the way. The knockout format here, which used to be unique, has now been copied by numerous other online poker providers including the market leader.
If you were a big freezeout fan, or thought that a variety of tournaments was a priority to you, you would surely be playing elsewhere.
The danger of this position is that it can never change. The new mtt players you attract will stay if they like bounty hunters, and probably leave if they are looking for a variety, or prefer freezeouts.
There are a number of players that would much prefer a variety, which is why the question that opened this thread gets asked on a regular basis.
James revealed in his comments his failed attempts to introduce successful tourneys that were not bounty hunters, and seemed to say that he thought a variety would be advantageous.
I am not blaming James, and am not clever enough to know the solution.
It wouldn't seem good business to regularly attract new players, only to lose them fairly quickly through their unhappiness with the schedule, and maybe lose some existing players who just became fed up with it.
You say there are a number of players that want variety which is based on those that post on the forum which is a small % of those that play on the site. When sky have introduced games based on the views of this minority the numbers aren't there in these games.
Sky have all the data so can analyse trends and understand about retention of players and seasonal trends. They have and will continue to try different things if they seem popular, historically when trying non bh games they have not been popular and end up dropping out of the schedule.
I cant remember when it happened but the schedule has changed from 100% freezeouts to almost 100% bounty hunters. With hindsight this was probably not a great idea.
It is also logical that if Sky had decided to change to Omaha instead of bounty hunters, then all the holdem players would have faced a choice of switching to Omaha or playing elsewhere.
If you attempted a few years later to launch a few holdem tournaments you would be likely to fail because all your players would be Omaha players.
"With hindsight changing from freezeout to bounty hunters not a great idea".
Not sure how or what reason you could possibly have for that statement.
Sky where ahead of the curve re bh and are one of the few sites growing and attracting new players. Maybe it is the why only bounty hunters posts once or twice a year ?
Following on from your bizarre statement above then you try to make a comparison between omaha and holdem . Popularity wise an omaha site mainly would last about a week.
If you have a site that has just about 100% bounty hunters on the tournament schedule, if you try to introduce tournaments that aren't bounty hunters, you are likely to fail because all your players have only played bounty hunters for a number of years.
Aussie quoted earlier that were almost 1200 new players last month. I haven't got a clue, but if that was an average month, that would mean over 14,000 new players per year, without seriously affecting the number of runners in the main tournaments. I would love to see Sky growing, more players, and bigger prize pools''
What games do you play Haysie? All the mains? The £55s? The £22s? Some £11s?
If a site attracted 1200 new players in a month, what %age would you expect to start jumping into £22+ games? 1%?
You are so short sighted its unreal, and you are nigh on impossible to debate or reason with because of this.
Bounty hunters are popular, hence the schedule being geared towards them. It really is as simple as that. Digest those words, read them twice (or more) if you need to.
Some of the numbers quoted are disinformation or fake news at its best.
".....1200 new players last month. I haven't got a clue, but if that was an average month, that would mean over 14,000 new players per year....."
If you were to divide those numbers by 10, they'd still be wrong, but not by anything like as much. No poker site in the UK would be able to claim such numbers. In fact, the entire UK & RoI facing Online Poker market cannot claim 14,000 new players per annum. That's how far out those numbers are.
I must apologise if the figures are wrong, I had no wish to mislead anyone.
This could have been a really short thread.
It could have been the original question, why so many bounty hunters?
Then you could have said, cos they are popular.
End of.
The majority view seems to be people like bounty hunters,and that bounty hunter mtts are getting more popular by the day.
So ime guessing sky are going to keep on the bounty hunter schedule, the only downside of that is,now that bounty hunters are getting so popular,and other sites are running more bounty hunter mtts all the the time, can sky compete with them ?
The reason I ask is bounty hunters are Sky's bread and butter,and if you like a site with a mostly bounty hunter schedule sky is the place to play,at the moment,
But with other sites now starting to run so many bounty hunters ,prob a lot with more runners/bigger gtds ,having a schedule that is so bounty hunter laden, might stop sky from bringing more players onboard in the future,as soon players will have a choice to play a bounty hunter schedule on their current site,or almost any other site.
Not easy to get a schedule balance right .,glad its not my job to try it.
i am a little miffed that it could be inferred that my figures are fake news.
i try to be precise in my language when presenting the numbers. you will see that there have been 1,165 players new to major tournaments in october and 1,199 in september.
not one of these people have played a major tournament before, with records going back to 2010 and covering 33,400 major tournaments played.
major tournaments are those with (a) guarantee over £500, (b) buy-in above £3, and (c) no fewer than 20 entrants. if any player never plays one they will not appear in my numbers. however, they will appear once they do.
It's not that your figures are fake news Rob, I don't doubt for one moment they are correct. It's how they are interpreted.
You made it quite clear that the "new players" were new to a variety of MTT's. This was interpreted as new to Sky Poker, which is a very different thing.
It seems to have escaped the notice of this thread that MTT's, in their entirety, only account for around one sixth of Online Poker Traffic. Another One sixth play SNG's, & the rest - some two thirds of the entire Online Poker revenue, comes from Cash Games. So when discussing the effect of MTT's on Sky Poker, it needs to be viewed in context.
One reason I have tried to stay away from commenting on this thread is that I'd get caught in a time & space lop from which I'd never escape, & so I only posted reluctantly last night, & now I wish I had not, as the last thing I wanted to do was upset you, & imply or suggest your data is inaccurate. Apologies if you thought I was taking a swipe at you. I was not.
*The 2 figures are;
"New to Rob's criteria, which is to SPECIFIC MTT's only"
"New to Sky Poker"
Before looking at this, please remember we are completely ignoring Cash Game play. In theory, a player could have been here for years playing cash games but appear as "new" (to a specific range of MTT's) in Rob's figures.
Please note all my stats come from Sharkscope, which is not always accurate. However, the figures I am going to show can be checked by any of you in a matter of seconds. I have zero access to Sky Poker's "back office" data.
If we look at Rob's Top 8 "New to Sky Poker Major Tournaments September 2017";
eamernem is seen on Sharksope to have small cashes in SNG's or MTT's (but outside Robs remit) as long ago as January 2016, some 1 year & 9 month months earlier.
Big_NF ditto, January 2017, some 8 months earlier.
davimg ditto, August 2017, a month earlier.
If we look at Rob's top 8 in October;
ChrisbmC ditto, June 2016, 1 year & 5 months earlier.
BWats, ditto, June 2013, 4 years & 5 months earlier
113magpies, ditto, August 2013, 4 years & 2 months earlier
Mazagran, ditto, February 2015, 2 years & 9 months earlier.
We don't know, of course, if any of these players played cash at an earlier date. Some of them are bound to have, though I would not like to estimate the number.
Nothing I have seen (though I did not particularly check) suggests Rob's analysis is incorrect. Remember, Rob clearly defined his criteria of "new to Sky Poker".
It was the interpretation of those numbers that was completely incorrect, & why, against my better wishes, I felt obliged to post on the thread to correct the disinformation that had been interpreted from those numbers & was being quoted & repeated frequently.
When incorrect stuff is posted on the internet, there is always SOMEONE who believes it, & once something is on the internet, it can never be erased, it remains there for ever.
Personally, I prefer to "sense-check" the numbers. Whenever in life I see a number that looks odd, I sense-check it.
In short, some of these players have been with Sky Poker for, literally, years.
It can be applied to ANY set of unknown numbers.
Here you go;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
remembering too, that when two-thirds of revenue is derived from cash it neither means that two-thirds play cash, nor that two-thirds of play is cash.