Thanks Tikay. Always appreciate your frank and honest answers
Ha, thank you.
In case anyone thinks otherwise, Phil (@EssexPhil) & I are good mates, & have never had a cross word, so I think there's maybe a slight misunderstanding here this morning.
Average runners for SPT Nottingham Semi - 11.66. Cash for sat winners - 38 Average runners for SPT Brighton Semi - 12.86. Cash for sat winners - 15 Average runners for SPT Glasgow Semi - 11.62. Cash for sat winners - 0
Using actual facts I can say the sats for Notts went terribly. Towards the end every semi was overlaying and all 3 seats were going as cash. Brighton sats went a bit better but that is mainly due to the location. Many of the top MTT regs who play cash for sats happen to be from down south which boosted runners. It also makes it much harder for rec players to qualify if half the field are pros. The system needed changing.
Have we made more money from these changes? No, that wasn't the point. Have more unique players qualified for the SPT that otherwise wouldn't have? Yes without a doubt.
Thanks James,
It would appear that the numbers playing are broadly the same, as I stated in the OP it was purely my observation but it would seem to be unfounded.
Hopefully I can qualify soon and come back here to tell you how fantastic the new system is :-)
Further clarification as to @Essexphil - we ARE good mates, but that's not to say I like him. For clarity, I don't.
The bit where our wires got crossed was you inferring/my clumsy wording causing you to think (delete as applicable) that you were anything less than honest.
You have always been honest and tried your best to be fair. Having said that, that would be precisely why you would not have been in the loop on certain matters (perhaps I am only judging people by my standards, but having been involved in advising on several similar takeovers, info tends to be given first to the more, er, cold-blooded
The figures provided by James are interesting, if a little selective. There is always variance-i know I ran a LOT better in the Nottingham Sats than the Brighton. Not sure if there is much difference between "Sats for Cash" and "Multiple seats" given that the "cash" merchants all play a lot on Sky anyway-my main concern is that people like Hanson and SidV are being disincentivised to play Sats, particularly from the next one. They are precisely the people that Sky needs more of.
What is needed is more Sat players. I can see why Nottm/Brighton figures show that to try a change was prudent, but the Glasgow stats show that this attempt is not the answer. The sooner a system is devised allowing people to transfer seats the better-your rivals manage it, including some whose software is more antiquated than Sky's.
Me and Tony have a love/hate relationship, I love him, he hates me
Average runners for SPT Nottingham Semi - 11.66. Cash for sat winners - 38 Average runners for SPT Brighton Semi - 12.86. Cash for sat winners - 15 Average runners for SPT Glasgow Semi - 11.62. Cash for sat winners - 0
Using actual facts I can say the sats for Notts went terribly. Towards the end every semi was overlaying and all 3 seats were going as cash. Brighton sats went a bit better but that is mainly due to the location. Many of the top MTT regs who play cash for sats happen to be from down south which boosted runners. It also makes it much harder for rec players to qualify if half the field are pros. The system needed changing.
Have we made more money from these changes? No, that wasn't the point. Have more unique players qualified for the SPT that otherwise wouldn't have? Yes without a doubt.
Hi SkyJames
Thanks for the breakdown-really interesting, however what is doesn't show is the number of £2.30/5.25 sats with the no of runners that have/haven't actually run? ( rhetorical Q..not expecting any feedback...can't speak for Notts but I can know for a fact the level/number of cancelled lower value sats for Glasgow has been higher than Brighton, certainly in 2017..can't speak for 2018....then I probably tried to be in most of of them !)
Have we made more money from these changes? No, that wasn't the point. Hmmm... Can't agree with that- as a business all of your changes should be to improve everything, including your bottom line £!
Have more unique players qualified for the SPT that otherwise wouldn't have? Yes without a doubt. Possibly because a number of previous known people-possibly the pros you talk about -aren't able to make money out of it so haven't bothered playing...it's not just gravity that makes it go round
Gosh! Are you telling me that (approx) 50% of the people I've been playing against to try to win SPT seats are pros??
That make me feel better as a recreational player that I've managed to acquire seats for each of the SPT's I've tried for...what I really mean is recreation players like me-who play for the fun of going to an SPT, with no expectation of cashing-probably needed the incentive of 'cash for sats' to afford to go, hence why there would be higher nos trying out at the lower value sats....
I can be pretty categoric in saying I know 2 people who would regularly play these sats under the previous arrangements to try to win additional seats to fund the trip so haven't bothered-apart from regging the semis, winning an all in then de-regging at the last moment! ( oh sorry thinking about it, one said couldn't go that far north to a foreign cuntry due to nosebleeds..)
Thanks again for the info and look forward to hopefully playing agin you in Glasgow
Further clarification as to @Essexphil - we ARE good mates, but that's not to say I like him. For clarity, I don't.
The bit where our wires got crossed was you inferring/my clumsy wording causing you to think (delete as applicable) that you were anything less than honest.
You have always been honest and tried your best to be fair. Having said that, that would be precisely why you would not have been in the loop on certain matters (perhaps I am only judging people by my standards, but having been involved in advising on several similar takeovers, info tends to be given first to the more, er, cold-blooded
The figures provided by James are interesting, if a little selective. There is always variance-i know I ran a LOT better in the Nottingham Sats than the Brighton. Not sure if there is much difference between "Sats for Cash" and "Multiple seats" given that the "cash" merchants all play a lot on Sky anyway-my main concern is that people like Hanson and SidV are being disincentivised to play Sats, particularly from the next one. They are precisely the people that Sky needs more of.
What is needed is more Sat players. I can see why Nottm/Brighton figures show that to try a change was prudent, but the Glasgow stats show that this attempt is not the answer. The sooner a system is devised allowing people to transfer seats the better-your rivals manage it, including some whose software is more antiquated than Sky's.
Me and Tony have a love/hate relationship, I love him, he hates me
Hey Phil
Sorry hate to disagree...Hanson's the one who gets nosebleeds that far north and SidV who has already won three seats when previously he told me he disagreed with the cash for sats approach so the new format has advantaged him...perhaps you were thinking about the Cornish Yorkshire man who whilst working in USA as a radio show host was stalked by a woman wanting the same song...
Everyone has different circumstances and you can't please everyone when you change a system. Yes a small number won't play as many sats. On the flip side I could give you a list of players that tried to qualify for previous SPTs but came up against good regs over and over and so didn't qualify. They have a better chance now. The change was made with rec players in mind not regs so we'll have to disagree there.
As for players playing for expenses that isn't the point of sats. We have a whole MTT schedule to play where you get paid in cash. If it's purely the increased likelihood of overlay that gets you playing the SPT semi then you will enjoy October!
As for the bottom line I could easily make it 2 seats guaranteed but we want to get more players into our live events not less and we're willing to lose money to do so. It is a form of free bet cost which is now 100% being used on SPT seats. Most of the cash for sat winners before were not using the sats for "expenses". They were playing them like a regular MTT and taking advantage of the value which was fair enough but it was a broken system and this was the best alternative with the software we have.
Agreed; they will definitely have a better chance of qualifying if I'm playing one!
Agreed again; I had to have it explained to me why you would play a sat already having won a place- but I then chose to follow this and tried capitalised on the system so fully accept the 'brokeness' of the system needed fixing ( but as I WAS using it to fund my flights, hotel and other costs, hey James can I cash in one of my 3 seats for £220? don't worry i won't tell anyone....that's a joke btw)
Suppose the bottom line is...
Will you get more players to Glasgow than say Manchester?- discount Notts for reasons not known and Brighton for reasons known...at some point you have to compare each event and measure the success of THAT objective and cost of trying to achieve it
The weird thing on this occasion, which really shocked me, was that although Sky Poker have always been scrupulously fair with their Customers, numerous long-term, loyal Customers instantly said "that's it, I'll never play an SPT again" sorta thing.
Nobody said "well it's not like Sky usually lift our legs, so first up, let's challenge it & ask what gives". It was insta "Sky are trying to steal from us". I guess the guys in the office who research Brand Loyalty took a lot away from that.
Very rare that I disagree with you Mr Tikay - but on this post I find I just have to.
When the announcement of the change re sats for cash was first made a few players (including myself) raised queries regarding point 4 of the "new" policy. I stated that to go to the SPT I personally would need to win at least 4 seats as I just know I'd be ko'd early doors (as proved multiple times in Brighton lol). To travel all the way to Glasgow - with the huge travel and hotel costs - combined with 4 "expected" buy in attempts would be cost prohibitive for someone like me who isn't a professional poker player. I was prepared to play sats to try to win 4 seats even when there wasn't a possibility of cash for any additional sats.
What I objected to - quite vocally I admit - was the statement from Sky at the time regarding point no. 4 which cleared stated that even if I somehow didn't need the extra 3 seats I'd won I would "lose" the value of them completely. I personally thought this must have been a typing error - or a mix up - so I took my query to a member of Sky Poker staff on Facebook messenger for further clarification. I was told in no uncertain terms that the rule 4 as it stood at the time was exactly what Sky intended. I did say that I'd feel like any extra unused seats would be almost like money actually stolen from me and other players if that point 4 was the true intention - and was told that if I felt like that then I shouldn't play the sats at all as any unused seats would 100% be forfeit and that decision was final. It was a few hours later before point 4 was rescinded to make it fair on players.
I am one of the long-term, loyal customers - and I couldn't believe that point 4 was being communicated correctly - so I did exactly what you just suggested - "first up, let's challenge it & ask what gives". I raised the challenge on messenger and was shot down in flames . So yes - originally I was giving Sky the benefit of the doubt - but when senior Sky staff on FB were basically telling me to accept that Sky have the right to withold up to 3 seats of value if not needed - then you might begin to understand why feelings were running high regarding the issue.
As it happens as soon as you announced the change in point 4 I quickly and honestly reposted that "happiness is restored".
I have now been lucky enough to have won my 4 seats for Glasgow (but for some reason I'm not showing up in any SPT lobby so should I worry? ). However this now actually makes me sad in a way as I will miss the banter and chat on the SPT sat tables.
There are only approx 51 players showing in the lobby in total for the Glasgow SPT. From memory there was usually much more than 25 players for each day registered for the tourney by now so I can't understand how the numbers of individual qualifiers can be the same as previous SPTs?
The weird thing on this occasion, which really shocked me, was that although Sky Poker have always been scrupulously fair with their Customers, numerous long-term, loyal Customers instantly said "that's it, I'll never play an SPT again" sorta thing.
Nobody said "well it's not like Sky usually lift our legs, so first up, let's challenge it & ask what gives". It was insta "Sky are trying to steal from us". I guess the guys in the office who research Brand Loyalty took a lot away from that.
I have now been lucky enough to have won my 4 seats for Glasgow (but for some reason I'm not showing up in any SPT lobby so should I worry? ).
That's weird Rose, & I have no idea why that is. There are 4 different lobbies & your alias does not seem to be in any of them at this moment (0800am Friday).
I'm sure there's a good reason for that, but I don't know what it is. I'll find out though & let you know.
The weird thing on this occasion, which really shocked me, was that although Sky Poker have always been scrupulously fair with their Customers, numerous long-term, loyal Customers instantly said "that's it, I'll never play an SPT again" sorta thing.
Nobody said "well it's not like Sky usually lift our legs, so first up, let's challenge it & ask what gives". It was insta "Sky are trying to steal from us". I guess the guys in the office who research Brand Loyalty took a lot away from that.
Very rare that I disagree with you Mr Tikay - but on this post I find I just have to.
When the announcement of the change re sats for cash was first made a few players (including myself) raised queries regarding point 4 of the "new" policy. I stated that to go to the SPT I personally would need to win at least 4 seats as I just know I'd be ko'd early doors (as proved multiple times in Brighton lol). To travel all the way to Glasgow - with the huge travel and hotel costs - combined with 4 "expected" buy in attempts would be cost prohibitive for someone like me who isn't a professional poker player. I was prepared to play sats to try to win 4 seats even when there wasn't a possibility of cash for any additional sats.
What I objected to - quite vocally I admit - was the statement from Sky at the time regarding point no. 4 which cleared stated that even if I somehow didn't need the extra 3 seats I'd won I would "lose" the value of them completely. I personally thought this must have been a typing error - or a mix up - so I took my query to a member of Sky Poker staff on Facebook messenger for further clarification. I was told in no uncertain terms that the rule 4 as it stood at the time was exactly what Sky intended. I did say that I'd feel like any extra unused seats would be almost like money actually stolen from me and other players if that point 4 was the true intention - and was told that if I felt like that then I shouldn't play the sats at all as any unused seats would 100% be forfeit and that decision was final. It was a few hours later before point 4 was rescinded to make it fair on players.
I am one of the long-term, loyal customers - and I couldn't believe that point 4 was being communicated correctly - so I did exactly what you just suggested - "first up, let's challenge it & ask what gives". I raised the challenge on messenger and was shot down in flames . So yes - originally I was giving Sky the benefit of the doubt - but when senior Sky staff on FB were basically telling me to accept that Sky have the right to withold up to 3 seats of value if not needed - then you might begin to understand why feelings were running high regarding the issue.
As it happens as soon as you announced the change in point 4 I quickly and honestly reposted that "happiness is restored".
I have now been lucky enough to have won my 4 seats for Glasgow (but for some reason I'm not showing up in any SPT lobby so should I worry? ). However this now actually makes me sad in a way as I will miss the banter and chat on the SPT sat tables.
There are only approx 51 players showing in the lobby in total for the Glasgow SPT. From memory there was usually much more than 25 players for each day registered for the tourney by now so I can't understand how the numbers of individual qualifiers can be the same as previous SPTs?
Thanks for that explanation Rose, my faith in human nature is at least partially restored now.
Thankfully, I don't use Facebook & have no idea what Facebook Messenger is, so I was oblivious to all that & can't explain it.
It remains the case though, Sky Poker have always been scrupulously fair & honest with their players. If you ever see or hear anything which suggests otherwise, please always let me know.
Everyone has different circumstances and you can't please everyone when you change a system. Yes a small number won't play as many sats. On the flip side I could give you a list of players that tried to qualify for previous SPTs but came up against good regs over and over and so didn't qualify. They have a better chance now. The change was made with rec players in mind not regs so we'll have to disagree there.
As for players playing for expenses that isn't the point of sats. We have a whole MTT schedule to play where you get paid in cash. If it's purely the increased likelihood of overlay that gets you playing the SPT semi then you will enjoy October!
As for the bottom line I could easily make it 2 seats guaranteed but we want to get more players into our live events not less and we're willing to lose money to do so. It is a form of free bet cost which is now 100% being used on SPT seats. Most of the cash for sat winners before were not using the sats for "expenses". They were playing them like a regular MTT and taking advantage of the value which was fair enough but it was a broken system and this was the best alternative with the software we have.
Hey James- in the continued spirit of open ness and transparency, any thought's on Irishrose's post from yesterday copied below There are only approx 51 players showing in the lobby in total for the Glasgow SPT. From memory there was usually much more than 25 players for each day registered for the tourney by now so I can't understand how the numbers of individual qualifiers can be the same as previous SPTs?
To date; is there more actual seats won to date? compared to Brighton/Manchester/Notts??
Perhaps its a fairer question at the end of the satellites......
For previous SPTs we have used promotions to qualify many players which I would then enter into the lobbys. And the same player would have been in both lobbys previously but now they are only displayed in one. So yes more seats are being won. 3 every night instead of 0-3 every night.
Comments
In case anyone thinks otherwise, Phil (@EssexPhil) & I are good mates, & have never had a cross word, so I think there's maybe a slight misunderstanding here this morning.
Thanks James,
It would appear that the numbers playing are broadly the same, as I stated in the OP it was purely my observation but it would seem to be unfounded.
Hopefully I can qualify soon and come back here to tell you how fantastic the new system is :-)
Neil
Further clarification as to @Essexphil - we ARE good mates, but that's not to say I like him. For clarity, I don't.
You have always been honest and tried your best to be fair. Having said that, that would be precisely why you would not have been in the loop on certain matters (perhaps I am only judging people by my standards, but having been involved in advising on several similar takeovers, info tends to be given first to the more, er, cold-blooded
The figures provided by James are interesting, if a little selective. There is always variance-i know I ran a LOT better in the Nottingham Sats than the Brighton. Not sure if there is much difference between "Sats for Cash" and "Multiple seats" given that the "cash" merchants all play a lot on Sky anyway-my main concern is that people like Hanson and SidV are being disincentivised to play Sats, particularly from the next one. They are precisely the people that Sky needs more of.
What is needed is more Sat players. I can see why Nottm/Brighton figures show that to try a change was prudent, but the Glasgow stats show that this attempt is not the answer. The sooner a system is devised allowing people to transfer seats the better-your rivals manage it, including some whose software is more antiquated than Sky's.
Me and Tony have a love/hate relationship, I love him, he hates me
Thanks for the breakdown-really interesting, however what is doesn't show is the number of £2.30/5.25 sats with the no of runners that have/haven't actually run?
( rhetorical Q..not expecting any feedback...can't speak for Notts but I can know for a fact the level/number of cancelled lower value sats for Glasgow has been higher than Brighton, certainly in 2017..can't speak for 2018....then I probably tried to be in most of of them !)
Have we made more money from these changes? No, that wasn't the point. Hmmm... Can't agree with that- as a business all of your changes should be to improve everything, including your bottom line £!
Have more unique players qualified for the SPT that otherwise wouldn't have? Yes without a doubt. Possibly because a number of previous known people-possibly the pros you talk about -aren't able to make money out of it so haven't bothered playing...it's not just gravity that makes it go round
Gosh! Are you telling me that (approx) 50% of the people I've been playing against to try to win SPT seats are pros??
That make me feel better as a recreational player that I've managed to acquire seats for each of the SPT's I've tried for...what I really mean is recreation players like me-who play for the fun of going to an SPT, with no expectation of cashing-probably needed the incentive of 'cash for sats' to afford to go, hence why there would be higher nos trying out at the lower value sats....
I can be pretty categoric in saying I know 2 people who would regularly play these sats under the previous arrangements to try to win additional seats to fund the trip so haven't bothered-apart from regging the semis, winning an all in then de-regging at the last moment! ( oh sorry thinking about it, one said couldn't go that far north to a foreign cuntry due to nosebleeds..)
Thanks again for the info and look forward to hopefully playing agin you in Glasgow
Augustus Gloop( I want your golden ticket!!)
Sorry hate to disagree...Hanson's the one who gets nosebleeds that far north and SidV who has already won three seats when previously he told me he disagreed with the cash for sats approach so the new format has advantaged him...perhaps you were thinking about the Cornish Yorkshire man who whilst working in USA as a radio show host was stalked by a woman wanting the same song...
As for players playing for expenses that isn't the point of sats. We have a whole MTT schedule to play where you get paid in cash. If it's purely the increased likelihood of overlay that gets you playing the SPT semi then you will enjoy October!
As for the bottom line I could easily make it 2 seats guaranteed but we want to get more players into our live events not less and we're willing to lose money to do so. It is a form of free bet cost which is now 100% being used on SPT seats. Most of the cash for sat winners before were not using the sats for "expenses". They were playing them like a regular MTT and taking advantage of the value which was fair enough but it was a broken system and this was the best alternative with the software we have.
Agreed; they will definitely have a better chance of qualifying if I'm playing one!
Agreed again; I had to have it explained to me why you would play a sat already having won a place- but I then chose to follow this and tried capitalised on the system so fully accept the 'brokeness' of the system needed fixing ( but as I WAS using it to fund my flights, hotel and other costs, hey James can I cash in one of my 3 seats for £220? don't worry i won't tell anyone....that's a joke btw)
Suppose the bottom line is...
Will you get more players to Glasgow than say Manchester?- discount Notts for reasons not known and Brighton for reasons known...at some point you have to compare each event and measure the success of THAT objective and cost of trying to achieve it
final thought..17.20 just cancelled..just 2 of us
sincerely
AG
When the announcement of the change re sats for cash was first made a few players (including myself) raised queries regarding point 4 of the "new" policy. I stated that to go to the SPT I personally would need to win at least 4 seats as I just know I'd be ko'd early doors (as proved multiple times in Brighton lol). To travel all the way to Glasgow - with the huge travel and hotel costs - combined with 4 "expected" buy in attempts would be cost prohibitive for someone like me who isn't a professional poker player. I was prepared to play sats to try to win 4 seats even when there wasn't a possibility of cash for any additional sats.
What I objected to - quite vocally I admit - was the statement from Sky at the time regarding point no. 4 which cleared stated that even if I somehow didn't need the extra 3 seats I'd won I would "lose" the value of them completely. I personally thought this must have been a typing error - or a mix up - so I took my query to a member of Sky Poker staff on Facebook messenger for further clarification. I was told in no uncertain terms that the rule 4 as it stood at the time was exactly what Sky intended. I did say that I'd feel like any extra unused seats would be almost like money actually stolen from me and other players if that point 4 was the true intention - and was told that if I felt like that then I shouldn't play the sats at all as any unused seats would 100% be forfeit and that decision was final. It was a few hours later before point 4 was rescinded to make it fair on players.
I am one of the long-term, loyal customers - and I couldn't believe that point 4 was being communicated correctly - so I did exactly what you just suggested - "first up, let's challenge it & ask what gives". I raised the challenge on messenger and was shot down in flames
As it happens as soon as you announced the change in point 4 I quickly and honestly reposted that "happiness is restored".
I have now been lucky enough to have won my 4 seats for Glasgow (but for some reason I'm not showing up in any SPT lobby so should I worry?
There are only approx 51 players showing in the lobby in total for the Glasgow SPT. From memory there was usually much more than 25 players for each day registered for the tourney by now so I can't understand how the numbers of individual qualifiers can be the same as previous SPTs?
I'm sure there's a good reason for that, but I don't know what it is. I'll find out though & let you know.
Thankfully, I don't use Facebook & have no idea what Facebook Messenger is, so I was oblivious to all that & can't explain it.
It remains the case though, Sky Poker have always been scrupulously fair & honest with their players. If you ever see or hear anything which suggests otherwise, please always let me know.
PS - Hope you enjoy Super Weekend.
Irishrose's post from yesterday copied below
There are only approx 51 players showing in the lobby in total for the Glasgow SPT. From memory there was usually much more than 25 players for each day registered for the tourney by now so I can't understand how the numbers of individual qualifiers can be the same as previous SPTs?
To date; is there more actual seats won to date?
compared to Brighton/Manchester/Notts??
Perhaps its a fairer question at the end of the satellites......
And the same player would have been in both lobbys previously but now they are only displayed in one.
So yes more seats are being won. 3 every night instead of 0-3 every night.