You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Ethics of providing unbeatable games
Vince_107
Member Posts: 70
Just wondered what people's thoughts are about the mid-low stakes spin-up games on offer on Sky.
For the past couple of months i've been grinding these mostly in the 0.25/50 - 1/2 range. This month I will get over 50k points, which means i'm raking over £8,000. Results-wise i've been pretty much breakeven, maybe slightly losing pre rakeback (played a bit of 1.50/3 and lost a lot of all-ins).
It seems questionable to me that Sky can justify keeping their rake structure the same for 10bb high-variance, low-edge games as they do for regular 100bb+ cash games. Not only are edges lower given the shallow stack sizes, but also hands per hour is greatly increased in these games, so Sky are taking rake at an absurd rate. I am one of a handful of regs playing these stakes, so if the other 4/5 regs are having similar results to myself, you're looking at £40,000 taken in rake, which must be being lost by others at the tables in order for us to be breakeven. To me this seems unsustainable and very short-term thinking from Sky and borderline unethical to provide a game where you can't beat the rake.
This post isn't particularly made for my own benefit as I can't see myself continuing in the games for much longer, but for the recreational players who don't really stand a chance at beating the rake over any decent length of time.
For the past couple of months i've been grinding these mostly in the 0.25/50 - 1/2 range. This month I will get over 50k points, which means i'm raking over £8,000. Results-wise i've been pretty much breakeven, maybe slightly losing pre rakeback (played a bit of 1.50/3 and lost a lot of all-ins).
It seems questionable to me that Sky can justify keeping their rake structure the same for 10bb high-variance, low-edge games as they do for regular 100bb+ cash games. Not only are edges lower given the shallow stack sizes, but also hands per hour is greatly increased in these games, so Sky are taking rake at an absurd rate. I am one of a handful of regs playing these stakes, so if the other 4/5 regs are having similar results to myself, you're looking at £40,000 taken in rake, which must be being lost by others at the tables in order for us to be breakeven. To me this seems unsustainable and very short-term thinking from Sky and borderline unethical to provide a game where you can't beat the rake.
This post isn't particularly made for my own benefit as I can't see myself continuing in the games for much longer, but for the recreational players who don't really stand a chance at beating the rake over any decent length of time.
Comments
But yes the rake is absurdly high for the format of game - However its not as bad as the turbo DYMs
It was like this before the stars acquisition, which seems to have scared them off even further from taking any short term risks.
The whole situation has lowered my view of sky poker considerably.
Unibet have spins with 1% rake. I would play there instead - give your £8k rake to a site that deserves it.
For sng/dym, party have the best rake I have seen. Around half of sky.
The site is (understandably) increasingly being run by its new owners.
Stars has many admirable qualities. Bowing to pressure in relation to rake (whether justified or not) is not one of them.
It's more the ethics of that decision that interests me. Poker is always seen and marketed as a game of skill played against others, not the house, therefore those skillful enough are able to be profitable. If you take this fundamental pillar of poker away from the players, many of whom have no idea that this is the case, then you are no longer providing a service that serves the poker community, it simply becomes a money making machine.
The main reason I play just MTT's is because that is the format I most enjoy. Also I know that in most reasonably sized MTT the better players can beat the rake.
I am interested in ethical Poker, and have always felt that there are more "compulsive gamblers" playing cash (Spins especially) than MTT's for that "quick fix" which is another reason I prefer MTTs as I feel it is less "exploitative" (And I am rubbish at cash anyway
Just my opinion, nothing against cash players, some of my best friends (and family too) play mainly cash, and I recognise that good cash players are better players (overall) than their counterparts that play MTT's in most cases.
I do wonder if these SPINS take traffic away from MTT's which seem to struggle more and more for numbers.
It would be "nice to think" that if "sites in general" genuinely wanted to promote responsible gambling that they would promote games that were less aimed at "compulsion/addiction."
Interesting debate.
If you make use of the promo's and grind hard enough to make the highest levels of rakeback, then you MIGHT manage to earn a tiny slither of what sky are making from you.
It seems like purely recreational players don't factor in rake when selecting a game, which is why they get away with it. Once a rec joins the game it creates value for other better players... though this only exacerbates the bum hunting problem, which only kills the games more - no one likes to feel like a target when they are just trying to have a bit of fun.
Do you not think that this is maybe being driven by certain sites seeming more appealing to the MTT player and one site in particular making a real effort to market and promote its MTT schedule.
They are kind of a mix between MTTs and regular cash games. MTT players can come along and not feel like they are giving up any edge to the strong cash game players since most of the decisions are based around 10-30bb stacks rather than every hand being 100bb effective.
I can only imagine how popular they would be if raked fairly
There's a debate over whether it is even an ethical debate....
The only solution we have as players is to make the environment super predatory and bottomhunt like mad, otherwise we can't win. In an industry that's now chasing deposits and player retention, the rake here on Sky, is obviously way way way too high.
It's too late now, tho. All people in office can do is keep numbers looking good.