Winning poker players moaning about not making enough profit on games they dont even really play ...its actually too funny for words ..well done for ascribing to the nonsense .
Winning poker players who go out of their way to help other players become winning players? How exactly would it help a business owned by stars who charge less than half the rake on the main site? I’m intrigued. I mean I run my own business but would love to know your take
Fixed your post , but still have no idea , what it is you are actually asking ? Not sure how running your own business is related to this , but I have ran several of my own businesses over the years , a couple on the high street , so if that was to provide some credibility to a question no one can understand , then well done .
A little patronising/condescending/rude (delete as appropriate) to ‘Fix’ there poast...
Too pointts-
It will diminish your credibility when you post controversial topics to that to people People will start to think you are actually related to Goldon
You can decide which is worse
Enjoy your games and carry on posting inane jokes and interesting words’ threads or similar
Thankyou , your input is very much appreciated and nice of you to take the time off from posting drivel and poor jokes on other threads to make this observation . And now back to the topic in hand ...was interested in Matts reply , and would be interested in his comments to my response.
Winning poker players moaning about not making enough profit on games they dont even really play ...its actually too funny for words ..well done for ascribing to the nonsense .
Winning poker players who go out of their way to help other players become winning players? How exactly would it help a business owned by stars who charge less than half the rake on the main site? I’m intrigued. I mean I run my own business but would love to know your take
Fixed your post , but still have no idea , what it is you are actually asking ? Not sure how running your own business is related to this , but I have ran several of my own businesses over the years , a couple on the high street , so if that was to provide some credibility to a question no one can understand , then well done .
Thankyou for making yourself look like a prize **** 💩
Iv stated on many occasions my spelling and grammar is poor. Has it stopped me achieving anything... nope
Can I beat above the 28p level in poker... indeed I can.
You are honestly the type of person that stops people coming on forums. I think your need to argue and patronise must of came from something in your childhood so I forgive you but won’t be replying to any more of your posts.
The following is why Sky would listen to anyone like Mr Melt.
Sky have 3 products. Melt has spent (according to Sharky) in excess of £400,000 on 1 of those products. Logically, earning Sky some £40,000 before rakeback/promos/costs etc.
He is saying that he likes one of those products. He knows that he could get it slightly cheaper elsewhere, but that this Sky product offers excellent value for money.
He is also saying that he has tried a particular type of 1 of the other 2 products, but found it to be uncompetitively priced. However, he continues to like the brand, and will continue to buy large quantities of the product that he prefers.
Now. Who wants to say that Melty should be denigrated or not listened to by Sky? And who (in Sky's shoes) would not look at whether to change the price of a particular product? Whether they do or not will depend on a whole host of factors, many outside Sky's control.
On the reverse side of that coin, it was rather unfair of someone (that I know and like) to refer to Dobie as a "troll". Do I agree with everything she says? Of course not. But right now she is doing more than anyone (Tony excepted) to keep this forum alive. And people should recognise that every bit as much as the views of Melt.
The following is why Sky would listen to anyone like Mr Melt.
Sky have 3 products. Melt has spent (according to Sharky) in excess of £400,000 on 1 of those products. Logically, earning Sky some £40,000 before rakeback/promos/costs etc.
He is saying that he likes one of those products. He knows that he could get it slightly cheaper elsewhere, but that this Sky product offers excellent value for money.
He is also saying that he has tried a particular type of 1 of the other 2 products, but found it to be uncompetitively priced. However, he continues to like the brand, and will continue to buy large quantities of the product that he prefers.
Now. Who wants to say that Melty should be denigrated or not listened to by Sky? And who (in Sky's shoes) would not look at whether to change the price of a particular product? Whether they do or not will depend on a whole host of factors, many outside Sky's control.
On the reverse side of that coin, it was rather unfair of someone (that I know and like) to refer to Dobie as a "troll". Do I agree with everything she says? Of course not. But right now she is doing more than anyone (Tony excepted) to keep this forum alive. And people should recognise that every bit as much as the views of Melt.
Thanks for a balanced post Phil. Being called a troll , from certain quarters , means nothing to me . At the end of the day , chicknmelt is entitled to his view as others are ...if people want a forum where everyone agrees and clique bandwagon jumpers are prevalent, it would be a pretty dull place .
Nothing wrong with players like myself who play at this level we pay more in rake above 10% plus twice as hard to win at given players will call any two...... unlike higher stake games. Also; Spare a thought for the practice guys newbies that get neglected.
The jokes thread is inane but I like it and the words’ thread is interesting, seriously and I agree with your point re: lots of very positive,interesting posts-including the high rake which I have read with interest as a
However, perhaps Dobie might ‘ reflect’ on the grammatical fixes and their impact on people!
( In her post, I could have replied and corrected what I would say is a typing error, not a grammatical error, but I wouldn’t..no point, that’s all I was trying to point out)
She could apologise by PM to itsover4u : no one would ever know and itsover4u may continue to contribute...
The jokes thread is inane but I like it and the words’ thread is interesting, seriously and I agree with your point re: lots of very positive,interesting posts-including the high rake which I have read with interest as a
However, perhaps Dobie might ‘ reflect’ on the grammatical fixes and their impact on people!
( In her post, I could have replied and corrected what I would say is a typing error, not a grammatical error, but I wouldn’t..no point, that’s all I was trying to point out)
She could apologise by PM to itsover4u : no one would ever know and itsover4u may continue to contribute...
Not going to happen , people need to grow a thicker skin.
Reducing the rake = more pros , which in turn mean more casual rec players are going to get their bankrolls busted quicker ( some might view the site as being full of pros ,too hard to make any money and don't reload/go elsewhere) . More pros on the site looking for an edge , will make nitty table selection predominant, and as a result , tables ( sng's) , will run less frequently , meaning less rake is gathered by sky which will no doubt have a knock on effect with promotions. As far as rewards payments , well people will have to play more volume just to get the same level of rewards payments they are currently receiving . Any argument , in relation to the aforementioned , that suggests this will be negated by the tables being easier to beat fail to take into account that the tables will invariably be tougher to beat , because there will be more pros playing, plus tables won't fill as quickly. A lot of casual recs are well aware of rake structures as they play on other sites as well or have done, but still continue to play here alongside regs . I fail to see how lowering the rake on here , would be beneficial to the poker " economy "
Back on subject ...Mattbates , told me my logic with this was flawed , but as yet hasn't told me why , apart from to say that it doesn't necessarily follow that less rake doesn't mean more pros ...well it doesn't mean it wouldn't either . If anyone can put forward reasoned views that oppose my synopsis above , it would be appreciated .
The grow a thicker skin comment, I just think making comments about people's grammar and spelling is a bit unnecessary.
You have made a big assumption that lower rake would mean more pros and I don't see what this is based on. As I said rake is one factor that players use to decide if they will play on a site. Players will look at things like rake, rakeback/promotions, toughness of games, software, frequency of games running amongst other things to decide where to play. So just because rake is lower doesn't mean you will suddenly get loads more pros playing.
There is always a fluidity in terms of toughness of games. Games wont stay soft for long because other players will join those games if they are easier than their current games.
Regarding turbo DYMs running regularly that is only the case up to £11, above that I don't believe they run all that regularly. Also just because games run regularly doesn't mean they couldn't be running a lot more with the lower rake per game being offset by increased games meaning sky are either better off or no worse off.
Are there that many players that play these games day in day out?
The grow a thicker skin comment, I just think making comments about people's grammar and spelling is a bit unnecessary.
You have made a big assumption that lower rake would mean more pros and I don't see what this is based on. As I said rake is one factor that players use to decide if they will play on a site. Players will look at things like rake, rakeback/promotions, toughness of games, software, frequency of games running amongst other things to decide where to play. So just because rake is lower doesn't mean you will suddenly get loads more pros playing.
There is always a fluidity in terms of toughness of games. Games wont stay soft for long because other players will join those games if they are easier than their current games.
Regarding turbo DYMs running regularly that is only the case up to £11, above that I don't believe they run all that regularly. Also just because games run regularly doesn't mean they couldn't be running a lot more with the lower rake per game being offset by increased games meaning sky are either better off or no worse off.
Are there that many players that play these games day in day out?
Not even going to bother expanding too much on the grow a thicker skin comment apart from to say , this is an internet forum , not a kindergarten creche . If someone wants to argue with me and come up with their own snidey little comments , then dont whinge and be surprised when you get it back in spades , because what you say makes no sense. I can't comment on turbo £11 dyms , because I simply don't pay any attention to that level , but £2 - £11 ones play with regularity . I would have thought that pros are always looking for edges , if that is in low rake , perceived soft fields , easily achievable and beneficial rewards system/cashback etc ....it really boils down to whether you think that lower rake benefits all of the poker ecology or just some of it . It's opposing views , and you really can't back up your opinions with fact any more than I can .
There probably isn't fact either way to support either position-only Sky can do the 'what if' projections on their income streams and see whether they might get greater participation and offset any reductions if they were to reduce the rake on DYM's, in line with some other platforms.
It's interesting to note a limited response to date on the subject-1 post from Sky James, though to be fair,I can understand they wouldn't want to embroiled in discussions about their business models.
As someone who is a new, 'rec' player, Im trying to get better and subsequently play higher value DYM/Heads up games as I learn.
Therefore I would also appreciate the rake on the DYM games being reduced, ideally matching the % charged on the Heads up games, e.g. instead of £20+2, with a 10% rake of £12 from 6 players to £20+1 with a 5% rake from 2 players.
I understand a reduction of 50% rake to Sky per DYM game played, however I for one would probably play more games as the ROI increases to offset the games I lose (which are many..)
So far I have moved from £2.20-5.50 last year to try to play more £5.50-22.00 this year and as importantly some heads up games, where the odds of cashing are better-only 1 player to beat, lower rake and takes less time.
We must play sometime; come up the DYM values, pay more rake and we could have some fun at the tables
Comments
And now back to the topic in hand ...was interested in Matts reply , and would be interested in his comments to my response.
Nail, hit and head
Enjoy your day and future games on sky..I will
Iv stated on many occasions my spelling and grammar is poor. Has it stopped me achieving anything... nope
Can I beat above the 28p level in poker... indeed I can.
You are honestly the type of person that stops people coming on forums. I think your need to argue and patronise must of came from something in your childhood so I forgive you but won’t be replying to any more of your posts.
You would make great friends with zen budhist
Sky have 3 products. Melt has spent (according to Sharky) in excess of £400,000 on 1 of those products. Logically, earning Sky some £40,000 before rakeback/promos/costs etc.
He is saying that he likes one of those products. He knows that he could get it slightly cheaper elsewhere, but that this Sky product offers excellent value for money.
He is also saying that he has tried a particular type of 1 of the other 2 products, but found it to be uncompetitively priced. However, he continues to like the brand, and will continue to buy large quantities of the product that he prefers.
Now. Who wants to say that Melty should be denigrated or not listened to by Sky? And who (in Sky's shoes) would not look at whether to change the price of a particular product? Whether they do or not will depend on a whole host of factors, many outside Sky's control.
On the reverse side of that coin, it was rather unfair of someone (that I know and like) to refer to Dobie as a "troll". Do I agree with everything she says? Of course not. But right now she is doing more than anyone (Tony excepted) to keep this forum alive. And people should recognise that every bit as much as the views of Melt.
At the end of the day , chicknmelt is entitled to his view as others are ...if people want a forum where everyone agrees and clique bandwagon jumpers are prevalent, it would be a pretty dull place .
However, perhaps Dobie might ‘ reflect’ on the grammatical fixes and their impact on people!
( In her post, I could have replied and corrected what I would say is a typing error, not a grammatical error, but I wouldn’t..no point, that’s all I was trying to point out)
She could apologise by PM to itsover4u : no one would ever know and itsover4u may continue to contribute...
If anyone can put forward reasoned views that oppose my synopsis above , it would be appreciated .
You have made a big assumption that lower rake would mean more pros and I don't see what this is based on. As I said rake is one factor that players use to decide if they will play on a site. Players will look at things like rake, rakeback/promotions, toughness of games, software, frequency of games running amongst other things to decide where to play. So just because rake is lower doesn't mean you will suddenly get loads more pros playing.
There is always a fluidity in terms of toughness of games. Games wont stay soft for long because other players will join those games if they are easier than their current games.
Regarding turbo DYMs running regularly that is only the case up to £11, above that I don't believe they run all that regularly. Also just because games run regularly doesn't mean they couldn't be running a lot more with the lower rake per game being offset by increased games meaning sky are either better off or no worse off.
Are there that many players that play these games day in day out?
I can't comment on turbo £11 dyms , because I simply don't pay any attention to that level , but £2 - £11 ones play with regularity .
I would have thought that pros are always looking for edges , if that is in low rake , perceived soft fields , easily achievable and beneficial rewards system/cashback etc ....it really boils down to whether you think that lower rake benefits all of the poker ecology or just some of it .
It's opposing views , and you really can't back up your opinions with fact any more than I can .
There probably isn't fact either way to support either position-only Sky can do the 'what if' projections on their income streams and see whether they might get greater participation and offset any reductions if they were to reduce the rake on DYM's, in line with some other platforms.
It's interesting to note a limited response to date on the subject-1 post from Sky James, though to be fair,I can understand they wouldn't want to embroiled in discussions about their business models.
As someone who is a new, 'rec' player, Im trying to get better and subsequently play higher value DYM/Heads up games as I learn.
Therefore I would also appreciate the rake on the DYM games being reduced, ideally matching the % charged on the Heads up games, e.g. instead of £20+2, with a 10% rake of £12 from 6 players to £20+1 with a 5% rake from 2 players.
I understand a reduction of 50% rake to Sky per DYM game played, however I for one would probably play more games as the ROI increases to offset the games I lose (which are many..)
So far I have moved from £2.20-5.50 last year to try to play more £5.50-22.00 this year and as importantly some heads up games, where the odds of cashing are better-only 1 player to beat, lower rake and takes less time.
We must play sometime; come up the DYM values, pay more rake and we could have some fun at the tables
Pachyderm of Taunton