Do new players play at the level the pros do I doubt it Do pros come down to the micros to play new players Probably not
Well not all new players join at micro stakes , they might be new to the site but not necessarily new to poker. And pros I have no doubt will dip into the lower levels to fill up their points tally when there is a points/package promo on and traffic might be slower elsewhere.
Saw this in an article today which pretty much sums it all up :
At the end of the day, it’s imperative that operators protect new players from professionals.
The trick for an online poker operator is to find the right rake level to keep the majority of professionals out of the new player pool until the new players decide they want the challenge.
At the same time, a site has to insure the rake isn’t so high that it destroys any avenues aspiring players can use to climb the poker ladder.
Would anyone argue that sky hasn't gauged that right ?
The reg to rec ratio is the same at 5% as it is 10% so there is no basis to say they sky have judged it right or wrong.
You are seriously over estimating the number of recs to regs at any table and are not considering how little the edge in skill gap is between a half decent rec and a average reg. The difference is much bigger as you reach the better regs - but unless a rec is going to jump into 200nl+ they dont really have to worry about it
Saw this in an article today which pretty much sums it all up :
At the end of the day, it’s imperative that operators protect new players from professionals.
The trick for an online poker operator is to find the right rake level to keep the majority of professionals out of the new player pool until the new players decide they want the challenge.
At the same time, a site has to insure the rake isn’t so high that it destroys any avenues aspiring players can use to climb the poker ladder.
Would anyone argue that sky hasn't gauged that right ?
The reg to rec ratio is the same at 5% as it is 10% so there is no basis to say they sky have judged it right or wrong.
You are seriously over estimating the number of recs to regs at any table and are not considering how little the edge in skill gap is between a half decent rec and a average reg. The difference is much bigger as you reach the better regs - but unless a rec is going to jump into 200nl+ they dont really have to worry about it
I'm not estimating , let alone over estimating anything . That was an a portion from an article I read and thought was pertinent. Are there figures available to tell us what the regs to recs ratio is on here in particular , or for that matter in general ? Or do we rely on anecdotal evidence ?
OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather than pss me off with your I'm right your wrong attitude again I have after 9 pages forgotten what this thread was about but hay ho … im on team chick on this .. I no, lets have a referendum and take 2 yrs to get a agreement to disagree and then back out only to disagree …time for more vodka ...LETS PARTY ..make love not war …
Firstly can your insults , it's unnecessary. Secondly , don't type on an internet forum while you're drunk , it just makes you look more stupid . Thirdly, I've never claimed to be a good player and I don't need to be to have an opinion on rake . Finally it's not about me being right and other being people wrong , it's a debate and debates normally have opposing views .
Can I ask? Do you now classify correcting people's grammar/typos as insulting ( demeaning/patronising), therefore unnecessary?
Perhaps the most telling post is Goldon's recently- your master/mentor/partner in crime advising you to be careful you don't get banned....
Stop derailing topics with spurious nonsense .
Final word....let’s just agree to disagree about how to treat people with mutual respect when being a keyboard commando - at one level I choose to reflect back to you the tone/approach you seem to use, hiding behind the opinion that people need to be more thick skinned
I have spent 30+ years in further education dealing with students who spent most of their school life being demeaned and degraded about their grammar/other perceived educational deficiencies which impact on their future life, especially when it’s pointed about by someone who clearly feels superior by this approach....sad really, especially as a mature person, you should know better...
Still at least you are learning by your previous errors...not one of Hanson’s many drunken,grammatical errors corrected in your response- maybe there is a reflective, mature approach buried somewhere - I won’t hold my breath
OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather than pss me off with your I'm right your wrong attitude again I have after 9 pages forgotten what this thread was about but hay ho … im on team chick on this .. I no, lets have a referendum and take 2 yrs to get a agreement to disagree and then back out only to disagree …time for more vodka ...LETS PARTY ..make love not war …
Firstly can your insults , it's unnecessary. Secondly , don't type on an internet forum while you're drunk , it just makes you look more stupid . Thirdly, I've never claimed to be a good player and I don't need to be to have an opinion on rake . Finally it's not about me being right and other being people wrong , it's a debate and debates normally have opposing views .
Can I ask? Do you now classify correcting people's grammar/typos as insulting ( demeaning/patronising), therefore unnecessary?
Perhaps the most telling post is Goldon's recently- your master/mentor/partner in crime advising you to be careful you don't get banned....
Stop derailing topics with spurious nonsense .
Final word....let’s just agree to disagree about how to treat people with mutual respect when being a keyboard commando - at one level I choose to reflect back to you the tone/approach you seem to use, hiding behind the opinion that people need to be more thick skinned
I have spent 30+ years in further education dealing with students who spent most of their school life being demeaned and degraded about their grammar/other perceived educational deficiencies which impact on their future life, especially when it’s pointed about by someone who clearly feels superior by this approach....sad really, especially as a mature person, you should know better...
Still at least you are learning by your previous errors...not one of Hanson’s many drunken,grammatical errors corrected in your response- maybe there is a reflective, mature approach buried somewhere - I won’t hold my breath
Perhaps as an equally mature person (maybe) , you would be better served by not derailing threads by inane sad attempts at humour aimed at ingratiating yourself . Congratulations at your heady professional achievements , now perhaps you would be so good as to let people have an intelligent conversation about an interesting topic and not deflect from the subject anymore .
Saw this in an article today which pretty much sums it all up :
At the end of the day, it’s imperative that operators protect new players from professionals.
The trick for an online poker operator is to find the right rake level to keep the majority of professionals out of the new player pool until the new players decide they want the challenge.
At the same time, a site has to insure the rake isn’t so high that it destroys any avenues aspiring players can use to climb the poker ladder.
Would anyone argue that sky hasn't gauged that right ?
how are you still arguing that this is the case when all the evidence points to the opposite?
You have provided no evidence that is the case, you are making a lot of assumptions from what I have read.
Please find some evidence to support your case, as I have. None of the top 10 for volume or profit this year according to sharkscope are in significant profit for £11 turbo dyms. Where is the avenue for aspiring player to climb the poker ladder if they can't make any money?
Saw this in an article today which pretty much sums it all up :
At the end of the day, it’s imperative that operators protect new players from professionals.
The trick for an online poker operator is to find the right rake level to keep the majority of professionals out of the new player pool until the new players decide they want the challenge.
At the same time, a site has to insure the rake isn’t so high that it destroys any avenues aspiring players can use to climb the poker ladder.
Would anyone argue that sky hasn't gauged that right ?
how are you still arguing that this is the case when all the evidence points to the opposite?
You have provided no evidence that is the case, you are making a lot of assumptions from what I have read.
Please find some evidence to support your case, as I have. None of the top 10 for volume or profit this year according to sharkscope are in significant profit for £11 turbo dyms. Where is the avenue for aspiring player to climb the poker ladder if they can't make any money?
The £11 turbo dyms are frequented by more than just your list of top 10 players , there will also be an amount of players who have opted out of sharkscope . The article I have quoted makes imo a valid point , how can you possibly argue that any site doesn't have to balance the rake structures to ensure that the whole ecology thrives ? I don't call, casually mentioning the top 10 players by volume or profit don't show up in significant profit for £11 dyms as proof . You might well be right , but evidence it isn't . Also , your idea of significant profit might vary to others opinions.
I don't really play on any other sites so not really sure how the rake affects me etc. It's been mentioned before but I play on here for fun and enjoy the social/community feel/side to it
Mainly MTT player but dabble (annoyingly) in spin and gos when the MTT is zzzzz
I know you play MTTs and we are mostly talking about turbo stuff
You would have made 10x more profit if the games you played were raked at 5%. Its basically the difference between being break even and making a tidy profit for you.
Imagine you HAD made that money... would you have played a bit more?
Not necessarily , the lower rake would no doubt attract more winning players /pros , wouldn't it ?
it would attract the players that didn't beat them previously mostly id say. The very best players continued to play them anyway because they were still able to eek out a small profit.
rake high: only the best regs can play + recs that don't care about rake
rake fairly: Everyone feels like they can play
Just because the games have been running doesn't mean they will continue to. It also doesn't mean they would run much more often if rake was lower.
How discouraging for new players must it be to look up the top regs of their game and see that they break even. Bye bye motivation to learn & probably poker. Only the guys that are here purely for fun stay.
I think you are painting a grim unrealistic picture of the top regs on here ...obv I cant back that up , as they're hardly likely to come on here and say , actually im crushing it . I also think that most recs wont have any idea of the true success of regs ( pretty much like us ) and wont really be that interested . You enter a double up for example and there are some names you recognise as often mentioned in dispatches , on the table it's a good experience to play against them ...sometimes you beat them , sometimes you lose ...i doubt the latter is a particular demotivator .
Im glad you agree its grim. I HAVE looked people up. I played a few hundred games this month, so I know who the regs are, I also know who the long term dym regs are. Im not exaggerating when I say the best player break even at £11+ turbo dyms.
-EDIT- After looking into it further, not one of the top 10 for count, or profit according to sharkscope leaderboards for SNGs on sky are profitable at £11 turbo dyms this year...
Chicknmelt , this is what you said way back in the thread . ^^^^ A couple of posts up , you say not one of the top10 by volume or profit are in significant profit . As you mentioned proving things , can you clarify which one of the two it is ?
firstly, I didn't want to say there are none in profit because I checked a while ago, and it is possible one or 2 of them might be in a few quid profit.
secondly, I am not arguing that a site doesn't have to find the right balance for rake... what have I said that makes you think that??
Lastly, 20+/20+ players I checked, trying to find people in profit does most certainly count as evidence. Maybe not conclusive, but definitely evidence. Certainly more conclusive than your comments like "they must be in profit or why would they play, or games are played by more than just the top 10's".
My challenge to you is to provide something other than finger in the air remarks about what you think might be happening....
firstly, I didn't want to say there are none in profit because I checked a while ago, and it is possible one or 2 of them might be in a few quid profit.
secondly, I am not arguing that a site doesn't have to find the right balance for rake... what have I said that makes you think that??
Lastly, 20+/20+ players I checked, trying to find people in profit does most certainly count as evidence. Maybe not conclusive, but definitely evidence. Certainly more conclusive than your comments like "they must be in profit or why would they play, or games are played by more than just the top 10's".
My challenge to you is to provide something other than finger in the air remarks about what you think might be happening....
To be fair , neither you or I can say that noone is in profit playing these games , unfortunately you did and now you're backtracking with the proof of your posts contradicting themselves. Profit figures will change , but you can hardly take a 2 month sample from the start of a year and say it's evidence . The only people that could say definitively that people do make a profit playing them, is sky and that aint going to happen because obviously the figures are business sensitive . You came out at the start of the thread and said categorically these games are unbeatable with the current rake , even Mattbates ( read back) , said that the best will make money at them.
I'm not backtracking. How are we supposed to take your posts seriously when you make stuff up like that?
Find one time I contradict myself? I say the same thing in different ways. The games are too hard to beat due to the rake. Nothing I say contradicts that. I never said it was impossible to beat them, the closest I came to that was along the lines of "probably impossible if you have a hard table"
I am also not saying NO ONE profits from them... Your making stuff up again. I'm saying the games seemed very hard to beat, so I tried to support this by seeking out players I thought would be in profit recently. I couldn't find any. That worries me and should probably worry you too.
Matt's post was not supporting your view either - twisting again? Here is the post in its entirety. Responding to you saying that regs must be making money because they play (again, finger in the air this is what I think might be happening rather than any actual numbers)
Who are all these regs? I know some wont have opted in/will have hidden stats but if you look at sharkscope any game by network (this includes HU SNG too) there are only 10 players that have averaged 1k games a month which in a volume game like DYMs seems super low. This includes a 2 week period with a specific DYM promo and 4 weeks of a SNG promo.
For context assuming £11 average stake you need to play 1000 games a month to make priority and get the extra RB which seems pretty key to making the games profitable.
I am not saying there are not players that make good money from DYMs but I don't think it is many. Also, just because you see someone play a lot doesn't mean they are making a lot of money or even making any money.
Stop twisting what people say to benefit your argument.
I'm not backtracking. How are we supposed to take your posts seriously when you make stuff up like that?
Find one time I contradict myself? I say the same thing in different ways. The games are too hard to beat due to the rake. Nothing I say contradicts that. I never said it was impossible to beat them, the closest I came to that was along the lines of "probably impossible if you have a hard table"
I am also not saying NO ONE profits from them... Your making stuff up again. I'm saying the games seemed very hard to beat, so I tried to support this by seeking out players I thought would be in profit recently. I couldn't find any. That worries me and should probably worry you too.
Matt's post was not supporting your view either - twisting again? Here is the post in its entirety. Responding to you saying that regs must be making money because they play (again, finger in the air this is what I think might be happening rather than any actual numbers)
Who are all these regs? I know some wont have opted in/will have hidden stats but if you look at sharkscope any game by network (this includes HU SNG too) there are only 10 players that have averaged 1k games a month which in a volume game like DYMs seems super low. This includes a 2 week period with a specific DYM promo and 4 weeks of a SNG promo.
For context assuming £11 average stake you need to play 1000 games a month to make priority and get the extra RB which seems pretty key to making the games profitable.
I am not saying there are not players that make good money from DYMs but I don't think it is many. Also, just because you see someone play a lot doesn't mean they are making a lot of money or even making any money.
Stop twisting what people say to benefit your argument.
Chickn..isn't your head sore yet? Trust me, the wall isn't hurting
I'm not backtracking. How are we supposed to take your posts seriously when you make stuff up like that?
Find one time I contradict myself? I say the same thing in different ways. The games are too hard to beat due to the rake. Nothing I say contradicts that. I never said it was impossible to beat them, the closest I came to that was along the lines of "probably impossible if you have a hard table"
I am also not saying NO ONE profits from them... Your making stuff up again. I'm saying the games seemed very hard to beat, so I tried to support this by seeking out players I thought would be in profit recently. I couldn't find any. That worries me and should probably worry you too.
Matt's post was not supporting your view either - twisting again? Here is the post in its entirety. Responding to you saying that regs must be making money because they play (again, finger in the air this is what I think might be happening rather than any actual numbers)
Who are all these regs? I know some wont have opted in/will have hidden stats but if you look at sharkscope any game by network (this includes HU SNG too) there are only 10 players that have averaged 1k games a month which in a volume game like DYMs seems super low. This includes a 2 week period with a specific DYM promo and 4 weeks of a SNG promo.
For context assuming £11 average stake you need to play 1000 games a month to make priority and get the extra RB which seems pretty key to making the games profitable.
I am not saying there are not players that make good money from DYMs but I don't think it is many. Also, just because you see someone play a lot doesn't mean they are making a lot of money or even making any money.
Stop twisting what people say to benefit your argument.
Chickn..isn't your head sore yet? Trust me, the wall isn't hurting
Maybe a little.
I feel strongly that Sky are taking more than they should from some game types, so I'm doing my best to argue a case for it. I think people don't always read through a whole thread so its important to have responses to the most recent arguments against.
Hopefully most people see it the same way I do. Maybe even sky?
I'm not sure there is much more to say on the topic - we are starting to see the same points being made. I wonder if sky have a response/ are going to take any action?
OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather than pss me off with your I'm right your wrong attitude again I have after 9 pages forgotten what this thread was about but hay ho … im on team chick on this .. I no, lets have a referendum and take 2 yrs to get a agreement to disagree and then back out only to disagree …time for more vodka ...LETS PARTY ..make love not war …
Firstly can your insults , it's unnecessary. Secondly , don't type on an internet forum while you're drunk , it just makes you look more stupid . Thirdly, I've never claimed to be a good player and I don't need to be to have an opinion on rake . Finally it's not about me being right and other being people wrong , it's a debate and debates normally have opposing views .
Asks someone to stop insulting them, then on the very next sentence calls said person ''stupid''.
OMG... finally got thru 9 pages of this thread and what can I say that.. no one really gives a sht what I think .. I'm not trying to cause any offence to any one, I've played on stars and other sites and no what the rake is on the games I play and except what I pay as a losing player I really do not give a sht all I no is I only lose what I'm happy to lose not sure after 9 pages what the ? was im so confused but I do respect chicknmelt as a winning player as I do other players that are far better and understand the game far better than me .. if dobie dip sht is such a great player why not just go play on poker stars and leave us sky players rather than pss me off with your I'm right your wrong attitude again I have after 9 pages forgotten what this thread was about but hay ho … im on team chick on this .. I no, lets have a referendum and take 2 yrs to get a agreement to disagree and then back out only to disagree …time for more vodka ...LETS PARTY ..make love not war …
Firstly can your insults , it's unnecessary. Secondly , don't type on an internet forum while you're drunk , it just makes you look more stupid . Thirdly, I've never claimed to be a good player and I don't need to be to have an opinion on rake . Finally it's not about me being right and other being people wrong , it's a debate and debates normally have opposing views .
Asks someone to stop insulting them, then on the very next sentence calls said person ''stupid''.
Think you need to practice what you preach.
I think you need to find something better to do with your time than troll on here . And for purposes of clarification , it is trolling when people like you deliberately seek out certain people to dig . Amazing how you get away with it time after time!
Comments
I doubt it
Do pros come down to the micros to play new players
Probably not
And pros I have no doubt will dip into the lower levels to fill up their points tally when there is a points/package promo on and traffic might be slower elsewhere.
You are seriously over estimating the number of recs to regs at any table and are not considering how little the edge in skill gap is between a half decent rec and a average reg. The difference is much bigger as you reach the better regs - but unless a rec is going to jump into 200nl+ they dont really have to worry about it
Are there figures available to tell us what the regs to recs ratio is on here in particular , or for that matter in general ? Or do we rely on anecdotal evidence ?
I have spent 30+ years in further education dealing with students who spent most of their school life being demeaned and degraded about their grammar/other perceived educational deficiencies which impact on their future life, especially when it’s pointed about by someone who clearly feels superior by this approach....sad really, especially as a mature person, you should know better...
Still at least you are learning by your previous errors...not one of Hanson’s many drunken,grammatical errors corrected in your response- maybe there is a reflective, mature approach buried somewhere - I won’t hold my breath
Congratulations at your heady professional achievements , now perhaps you would be so good as to let people have an intelligent conversation about an interesting topic and not deflect from the subject anymore .
You have provided no evidence that is the case, you are making a lot of assumptions from what I have read.
Please find some evidence to support your case, as I have. None of the top 10 for volume or profit this year according to sharkscope are in significant profit for £11 turbo dyms. Where is the avenue for aspiring player to climb the poker ladder if they can't make any money?
The article I have quoted makes imo a valid point , how can you possibly argue that any site doesn't have to balance the rake structures to ensure that the whole ecology thrives ?
I don't call, casually mentioning the top 10 players by volume or profit don't show up in significant profit for £11 dyms as proof . You might well be right , but evidence it isn't .
Also , your idea of significant profit might vary to others opinions.
A couple of posts up , you say not one of the top10 by volume or profit are in significant profit .
As you mentioned proving things , can you clarify which one of the two it is ?
secondly, I am not arguing that a site doesn't have to find the right balance for rake... what have I said that makes you think that??
Lastly, 20+/20+ players I checked, trying to find people in profit does most certainly count as evidence. Maybe not conclusive, but definitely evidence. Certainly more conclusive than your comments like "they must be in profit or why would they play, or games are played by more than just the top 10's".
My challenge to you is to provide something other than finger in the air remarks about what you think might be happening....
Profit figures will change , but you can hardly take a 2 month sample from the start of a year and say it's evidence .
The only people that could say definitively that people do make a profit playing them, is sky and that aint going to happen because obviously the figures are business sensitive .
You came out at the start of the thread and said categorically these games are unbeatable with the current rake , even Mattbates ( read back) , said that the best will make money at them.
Find one time I contradict myself? I say the same thing in different ways. The games are too hard to beat due to the rake. Nothing I say contradicts that. I never said it was impossible to beat them, the closest I came to that was along the lines of "probably impossible if you have a hard table"
I am also not saying NO ONE profits from them... Your making stuff up again. I'm saying the games seemed very hard to beat, so I tried to support this by seeking out players I thought would be in profit recently. I couldn't find any. That worries me and should probably worry you too.
Matt's post was not supporting your view either - twisting again? Here is the post in its entirety. Responding to you saying that regs must be making money because they play (again, finger in the air this is what I think might be happening rather than any actual numbers)
Who are all these regs? I know some wont have opted in/will have hidden stats but if you look at sharkscope any game by network (this includes HU SNG too) there are only 10 players that have averaged 1k games a month which in a volume game like DYMs seems super low. This includes a 2 week period with a specific DYM promo and 4 weeks of a SNG promo.
For context assuming £11 average stake you need to play 1000 games a month to make priority and get the extra RB which seems pretty key to making the games profitable.
I am not saying there are not players that make good money from DYMs but I don't think it is many. Also, just because you see someone play a lot doesn't mean they are making a lot of money or even making any money.
Stop twisting what people say to benefit your argument.
" you get beaten by better players , not the rake"
Also, completely untrue in turbo dyms. Rake is 10% and winrates for the best players are definitely under that.
Probably true in a cash game, or MTT if the structure and rake are reasonable.
Maybe a little.
I feel strongly that Sky are taking more than they should from some game types, so I'm doing my best to argue a case for it. I think people don't always read through a whole thread so its important to have responses to the most recent arguments against.
Hopefully most people see it the same way I do. Maybe even sky?
I'm not sure there is much more to say on the topic - we are starting to see the same points being made. I wonder if sky have a response/ are going to take any action?
I'd bet my bankroll (such as it is!) that they wont.
I made a similar thread about 6 years ago.
What's most alarming is it's the microstakes that are raked the highest.
I'm not sure about the sit and gos nowardays, but I believe they used to charge 15% rake, even at 30pence games.
As opposed to 10% higher up....
And cash games at 10nl and below are charged at 7.5% rake, whilst higher up is only 5%.
This seems really dumb to me, as these are the entry levels for almost all poker players, who flick a tenner on here and there for some fun...
These are the players that keep the game going, like investing in future players which poker needs to survive...
....and these rake fees are making it nigh on impossible for anyone to win...
Even experienced players would struggle to beat 30p dyms @ 15% rake.
It just doesn't make sense to me, give people a chance to actually win in the games and they're more likely to return and play again?
Think you need to practice what you preach.