SKY HIGH RAKE - POLL

chicknMelt

I made a post a week or two ago making an argument for sky to reduce their rake on sit n go's, particularly the turbo ones.

here is the link:
https://www.skypoker.com/secure/poker/sky_lobby/community/forums#/discussion/174804/sky-high-rake/p1


What are your thoughts on the rake sky charges for sit n go's

stokefc

voted the last one
anything that helps the ecology for low stakes players i,m all for it

EvilPingu

Voted the 4th option.

Puts me off Turbo DYMs as well as trying to get regular SNGs running.

Regular DYMs fall into the "Bit high but doesn't put me off" category for the most part. Defo makes me game select harder at £22+ whenever I've played higher up though, because there's just not enough bad players at those stakes for the games to be beatable with the reg/rec ratio and 10% rake for me to be able to open sit the lobbies.

madprof

EvilPingu said:

Voted the 4th option.

Puts me off Turbo DYMs as well as trying to get regular SNGs running.

Regular DYMs fall into the "Bit high but doesn't put me off" category for the most part. Defo makes me game select harder at £22+ whenever I've played higher up though, because there's just not enough bad players at those stakes for the games to be beatable with the reg/rec ratio and 10% rake for me to be able to open sit the lobbies.

Hi I voted 3, yes its a bit high but it doesn't put me off...totally agree about player standards when you go up and over £22....I think £22 is my (ability/finance) limits...did try higher value when I was winning and felt flush and got spanked a little(ooh missus)

If they matched the DYM rates to the Headsup rates, it would feel more £ consistent

DoyleBrun

Voted 5 I play them every now and again but not often.

dobiesdraw

Perhaps suggest sky send this poll out as a survey to all their players

craigcu12

Once sky merge with stars the rake should be much lower.

I use to think sky had the worst cash table rake but I recent discovered a site who's cash table rake is even worse than sky and it's DYM rake matches that on sky

dobiesdraw

madprof said:

EvilPingu said:

Voted the 4th option.

Puts me off Turbo DYMs as well as trying to get regular SNGs running.

Regular DYMs fall into the "Bit high but doesn't put me off" category for the most part. Defo makes me game select harder at £22+ whenever I've played higher up though, because there's just not enough bad players at those stakes for the games to be beatable with the reg/rec ratio and 10% rake for me to be able to open sit the lobbies.

Hi I voted 3, yes its a bit high but it doesn't put me off...totally agree about player standards when you go up and over £22....I think £22 is my (ability/finance) limits...did try higher value when I was winning and felt flush and got spanked a little(ooh missus)

If they matched the DYM rates to the Headsup rates, it would feel more £ consistent

Unfortunately most players at that level also know what a set is , but to be fair they do at lower levels as well .

dobiesdraw

chicknMelt said:

I made a post a week or two ago making an argument for sky to reduce their rake on sit n go's, particularly the turbo ones.

here is the link:
https://www.skypoker.com/secure/poker/sky_lobby/community/forums#/discussion/174804/sky-high-rake/p1


What are your thoughts on the rake sky charges for sit n go's

I'm sorry to be negative , but how is a poll which attracts a very limited forum audience actually going to change skys mind about rake ? The number of the player pool vastly outnumbers those who actually contribute on this forum .

chicknMelt

I don't think you are sorry to be negative.

I agree, there are more players than contribute to this forum. Thanks for the insight.

Maybe sky didn't know how many people think this way. I don't think just because people contribute to a forum it means their view is going to be vastly different to those that don't.

75% of people polled at the time I post this think rake is "way too high". Over half of the people polled would actually be playing more if rake was less. It would get my attention, that's for sure.

If they ignore it, so be it. In my opinion there is a business case not to though.

dobiesdraw

chicknMelt said:

I don't think you are sorry to be negative.

I agree, there are more players than contribute to this forum. Thanks for the insight.

Maybe sky didn't know how many people think this way. I don't think just because people contribute to a forum it means their view is going to be vastly different to those that don't.

75% of people polled at the time I post this think rake is "way too high". Over half of the people polled would actually be playing more if rake was less. It would get my attention, that's for sure.

If they ignore it, so be it. In my opinion there is a business case not to though.

Yep 38 votes is sure to get their attention . Listen , if you read back you would see I posted suggesting that sky offer up this sort of poll as a customer survey . They would get more of a representative feedback if they did .

chicknMelt

38 in a few hours, yes.

Not too bad if you ask me. It at least starts to give an idea of what people think, after they have read both sides of the debate.

I really don't get why you are so against this, it doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain?

dobiesdraw

chicknMelt said:

38 in a few hours, yes.

Not too bad if you ask me. It at least starts to give an idea of what people think, after they have read both sides of the debate.

I really don't get why you are so against this, it doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain?

Because I genuinely believe that if you lower the rake to a certain level then it opens up the "colosseum" to the pros and the recs lose their money quicker and don't come back .
That said , If you really want to find out what the masses of sky poker really think , then it would be more beneficial to ask sky to survey them . A forum survey of a tiny sample of the total player pool means nothing to them and it won't change their business plan. .
Also , no one has put forward the other side of the argument apart from me , and obviously for reasons outside this discussion nobody is ever going to agree with me ( quite happy with that )., yet still there will be players on this site who never use the forum that could argue the other side a lot better than me .

chicknMelt

I don't think there is anyone that could argue the other side any better. You have made all the same points Dnegs made for pokerstars. Its just a very unpopular opinion. Most people want a chance to win long term when they play, its part of the reason they play poker rather than blackjack.

I get why you are worried. I just completely disagree. Surely it is healthy to at least have some people having a positive win rate before rakeback.

If sky want to survey people that's up to them, I doubt they would listen to me just asking them to though. If anything, this would be more of an encouragement to look into it further than me just asking.

madprof

dobiesdraw said:

madprof said:

EvilPingu said:

Voted the 4th option.

Puts me off Turbo DYMs as well as trying to get regular SNGs running.

Regular DYMs fall into the "Bit high but doesn't put me off" category for the most part. Defo makes me game select harder at £22+ whenever I've played higher up though, because there's just not enough bad players at those stakes for the games to be beatable with the reg/rec ratio and 10% rake for me to be able to open sit the lobbies.

Hi I voted 3, yes its a bit high but it doesn't put me off...totally agree about player standards when you go up and over £22....I think £22 is my (ability/finance) limits...did try higher value when I was winning and felt flush and got spanked a little(ooh missus)

If they matched the DYM rates to the Headsup rates, it would feel more £ consistent

Unfortunately most players at that level also know what a set is , but to be fair they do at lower levels as well .

I think the phrase includes POT,KETTLE and BLACK. Perhaps one day if you qualify for an SPT this can be discussed in person, rather than behind the keyboard.

goldon

Yep! it was me. He! He!

mumsie

I've voted and now I've had a day to think about it, the polls wrong.

For starters, calling the poll SKY HIGH RAKE then asking if we think it's high is biased.

CxE1

Its bad business to have high rake. You need new players, existing players to play and lapsed players to come back. None of these 3 categories would be overly encouraged to play these long term. An accountant would advise you to play these elsewhere. Of course there are many other factors but that doesn't stop the mrs dragging me to 3 separate supermarkets to save 20p on milk.

Tikay10

mumsie said:

I've voted and now I've had a day to think about it, the polls wrong.

For starters, calling the poll SKY HIGH RAKE then asking if we think it's high is biased.

Itsover4u

dobiesdraw said:

chicknMelt said:

38 in a few hours, yes.

Not too bad if you ask me. It at least starts to give an idea of what people think, after they have read both sides of the debate.

I really don't get why you are so against this, it doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain?

Because I genuinely believe that if you lower the rake to a certain level then it opens up the "colosseum" to the pros and the recs lose their money quicker and don't come back .
That said , If you really want to find out what the masses of sky poker really think , then it would be more beneficial to ask sky to survey them . A forum survey of a tiny sample of the total player pool means nothing to them and it won't change their business plan. .
Also , no one has put forward the other side of the argument apart from me , and obviously for reasons outside this discussion nobody is ever going to agree with me ( quite happy with that )., yet still there will be players on this site who never use the forum that could argue the other side a lot better than me .

What pros are going to damage the recs playing 20nl and below? this is not pokerstars.... this is not a place where people play low stakes to make a living... in the UK you cant make a living from these stakes.

On pokerstars they have pro grinders at micros because the cost of living is so cheap in these countries... sky does not have this. You are not going to see any "pros" migrating to low-stakes because the rake has been dropped. Why would they drop to lower stakes if they already beat higher stakes?

For someone who tries to come across super intellectual you provide no facts for half your statements and you berate other people and call them stupid, Hardly the way many of the great thinkers like Stephen Hawkins would put across a theory. This is the theory of everything if you don't follow me your thick.

Im sorry but melt is trying to do something good for people that has no benefit to him. In this topic specifically you have been a poison and opposing the view of at least 99% of the poker community. your not superior don't try to cover up your deficiencies by acting like you are

madprof

Itsover4u said:

dobiesdraw said:

chicknMelt said:

38 in a few hours, yes.

Not too bad if you ask me. It at least starts to give an idea of what people think, after they have read both sides of the debate.

I really don't get why you are so against this, it doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain?

Because I genuinely believe that if you lower the rake to a certain level then it opens up the "colosseum" to the pros and the recs lose their money quicker and don't come back .
That said , If you really want to find out what the masses of sky poker really think , then it would be more beneficial to ask sky to survey them . A forum survey of a tiny sample of the total player pool means nothing to them and it won't change their business plan. .
Also , no one has put forward the other side of the argument apart from me , and obviously for reasons outside this discussion nobody is ever going to agree with me ( quite happy with that )., yet still there will be players on this site who never use the forum that could argue the other side a lot better than me .

What pros are going to damage the recs playing 20nl and below? this is not pokerstars.... this is not a place where people play low stakes to make a living... in the UK you cant make a living from these stakes.

On pokerstars they have pro grinders at micros because the cost of living is so cheap in these countries... sky does not have this. You are not going to see any "pros" migrating to low-stakes because the rake has been dropped. Why would they drop to lower stakes if they already beat higher stakes?

For someone who tries to come across super intellectual you provide no facts for half your statements and you berate other people and call them stupid, Hardly the way many of the great thinkers like Stephen Hawkins would put across a theory. This is the theory of everything if you don't follow me your thick.

Im sorry but melt is trying to do something good for people that has no benefit to him. In this topic specifically you have been a poison and opposing the view of at least 99% of the poker community. your not superior don't try to cover up your deficiencies by acting like you are

Didn't think it would happen, but I have to agree with Dobiesdraws...now that's ironic as they seem to getting in a twist on this thread

It's can't and you're

Your in for it my lad if you cant type properly!

Other than that, another very sensible, logical and fair summary