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.

Essexphil's UKOPS diary

15791011

Comments

  • MAXALLYMAXALLY Member Posts: 17,483
    edited April 2020
    Some cracking and informed posts here Phil.

    I started off my UKOPS with just one rebuy on the whole 1st day. That increased greatly as the days went by, and it had a detrimental effect on my buy ins. I went out the Main just before re-entry stopped. I was tempted, but didnt rebuy.

    A 'level' playing field is what most recs what, but that is not the direction this site is going.

    Anyway, thanks for these posts. It has made me think.

    You are a decent bloke and a not so bad player ;)

    Why dont you play the FTT games tonight? Two deepstacks and a BH. No rake or rebuys in these and a good way to 'enjoy' poker cheaply for a few hours.

    If not, enjoy the break.

    Take care, stay safe, stay sane. Oh, and it is your round next time I see you, cheers.
  • MISTY4MEMISTY4ME Member Posts: 6,147
    Sorry to hear things haven't gone too well for you in this UKOPS series @Essexphil

    I was looking forward to playing quite a few of the Mini's having managed to win a 10.45pm Turbo Bounty Hunter just before UKOPS started. I bought into the first 3 nights, but found that people were just punting off their chips and re-entering, which I know should be what you want ....... until they hit a couple of times and knock you out.
    I never re-enter, and never ever play Rebuy Tournaments, mainly due to my very limited BR. I would have liked to have seen a bit of variety with the Mini, with different (Deeper) Chip Stacks, as this is the lowest direct Buy-in event. In particular the MegaMini which I thought being a Mega would have had more chips. :(

    Some 'Old Fogey' told me I should be buying into smaller Tourneys direct (using the £5.50) rather than trying to satellite into the Bigger events ........ as usual, he was right @HAYSIE

    ...... though he once got something wrong ;)

    Hope to see you back soon Phil @Essexphil, when everything is much calmer ..... and particularly when the SPT's are back up and running

    GOOD LUCK wherever you choose to play :)
  • rabdenirorabdeniro Member Posts: 4,212
    MISTY4ME said:

    Sorry to hear things haven't gone too well for you in this UKOPS series @Essexphil

    I was looking forward to playing quite a few of the Mini's having managed to win a 10.45pm Turbo Bounty Hunter just before UKOPS started. I bought into the first 3 nights, but found that people were just punting off their chips and re-entering, which I know should be what you want ....... until they hit a couple of times and knock you out.
    I never re-enter, and never ever play Rebuy Tournaments, mainly due to my very limited BR. I would have liked to have seen a bit of variety with the Mini, with different (Deeper) Chip Stacks, as this is the lowest direct Buy-in event. In particular the MegaMini which I thought being a Mega would have had more chips. :(

    Some 'Old Fogey' told me I should be buying into smaller Tourneys direct (using the £5.50) rather than trying to satellite into the Bigger events ........ as usual, he was right @HAYSIE

    ...... though he once got something wrong ;)

    Hope to see you back soon Phil @Essexphil, when everything is much calmer ..... and particularly when the SPT's are back up and running

    GOOD LUCK wherever you choose to play :)

    Agree with you and I think more freezouts must be better for rec players, I satted in to a couple of the larger tournies, £50 and £100 rebuys knowing that I couldn't rebuy if I was low on chips but I wanted a chance to play in them, I know why they do them but more of a balance is surely the way head.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,524
    I will try harder to say something sensible this time.

    If we go back to the days pre-lockdown, many of the tournaments relied upon re-entries to cover the guarantees.

    I suppose the alternative is to stop the re-entries and reduce the guarantees.

    The effect of this would surely be to encourage fewer players, and therefore reduce guarantees further.

    Re-entries obviously increase prize pools.

    Most players would surely prefers increased prize pools.

    The re-entry facility will encourage some players to play in a different way.

    I know I have made calls in the knowledge I could re-enter if busting out.

    There is a huge difference between re-entry tourneys, and rebuys, although Sky often use the term rebuy, when they should call them re-entries.

    When you enter a rebuy, you know what you are getting yourself into, and know you will need at least 3 buy ins.

    If you used the main as an example, using the one re-entry available, a min cash means you will still lose money.

    No limit on re-entries obviously gives the better players an advantage.

    The example of a player entering 6 times is surely a red herring.

    This is surely something that happens rarely.

    You would probably need a ft finish to cover your buy in.

    There is no doubt in my mind that anyone might have a different view on this topic if they had just won three UKOPS main events.

    I started a thread once questioning starting stacks, and was bashed all over the place on the basis of everyone had the same starting stack.

    I would agree that there are many tournaments that now allow a re-entry where they didn't before.

    I haven't done any research on this, but I looked at one tourney the other night where the prize pool seemed to have taken re-entries into account, and paid more places than it would have, if just taking entries into account.

    If this is true then more players getting paid is a good thing.

    It probably comes down to re-entries or lower guaranties.
  • daggers747daggers747 Member Posts: 186
    Great observations Phil. But when in life these days is there a level playing field.

    When i was a child something happened at home, I looked at my dad and stated indignantly thats not fair Dad. He looked back at me and said lifes not fair son and the quicker you learn that the better.

    50 plus years later those words still resonate.

  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    MAXALLY said:

    Some cracking and informed posts here Phil.

    I started off my UKOPS with just one rebuy on the whole 1st day. That increased greatly as the days went by, and it had a detrimental effect on my buy ins. I went out the Main just before re-entry stopped. I was tempted, but didnt rebuy.

    A 'level' playing field is what most recs what, but that is not the direction this site is going.

    Anyway, thanks for these posts. It has made me think.

    You are a decent bloke and a not so bad player ;)

    Why dont you play the FTT games tonight? Two deepstacks and a BH. No rake or rebuys in these and a good way to 'enjoy' poker cheaply for a few hours.

    If not, enjoy the break.

    Take care, stay safe, stay sane. Oh, and it is your round next time I see you, cheers.

    Thanks.

    Not so bad yourself.

    Might well play the FTT next week.

    My round-if the world ever gets back to normal...
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    MISTY4ME said:

    Sorry to hear things haven't gone too well for you in this UKOPS series @Essexphil

    I was looking forward to playing quite a few of the Mini's having managed to win a 10.45pm Turbo Bounty Hunter just before UKOPS started. I bought into the first 3 nights, but found that people were just punting off their chips and re-entering, which I know should be what you want ....... until they hit a couple of times and knock you out.
    I never re-enter, and never ever play Rebuy Tournaments, mainly due to my very limited BR. I would have liked to have seen a bit of variety with the Mini, with different (Deeper) Chip Stacks, as this is the lowest direct Buy-in event. In particular the MegaMini which I thought being a Mega would have had more chips. :(

    Some 'Old Fogey' told me I should be buying into smaller Tourneys direct (using the £5.50) rather than trying to satellite into the Bigger events ........ as usual, he was right @HAYSIE

    ...... though he once got something wrong ;)

    Hope to see you back soon Phil @Essexphil, when everything is much calmer ..... and particularly when the SPT's are back up and running

    GOOD LUCK wherever you choose to play :)

    Thanks, Jez. Good luck.

    There is a world of difference between Rebuys and Re-Entries. People know what they are getting into with Rebuys. Re-entry MTTs? Not so much.

    Satelliting into bigger events brings me to another interesting point.

    Suppose you are trying to satt into a £100 plus £10 Main.
    The qualifier says £24, £22 plus£2. But that is not always true.

    If you are a Rec, and playing for your first seat, you are getting entry into a £100 MTT. You see, you are paying rake twice-once for the qualifier (£22 plus£2) and on the 1 in 5 chance you qualify (£100 plus £10). So in reality you are playing a £20 plus £4 rake qualifier.

    Whereas somebody who already has a seat is given £110 cash, not a seat in a £100 MTT. Who can then re-enter for £100, not £110.

    So-in essence-Recs pay double Rake. So winning players don't have to.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    rabdeniro said:

    MISTY4ME said:

    Sorry to hear things haven't gone too well for you in this UKOPS series @Essexphil

    I was looking forward to playing quite a few of the Mini's having managed to win a 10.45pm Turbo Bounty Hunter just before UKOPS started. I bought into the first 3 nights, but found that people were just punting off their chips and re-entering, which I know should be what you want ....... until they hit a couple of times and knock you out.
    I never re-enter, and never ever play Rebuy Tournaments, mainly due to my very limited BR. I would have liked to have seen a bit of variety with the Mini, with different (Deeper) Chip Stacks, as this is the lowest direct Buy-in event. In particular the MegaMini which I thought being a Mega would have had more chips. :(

    Some 'Old Fogey' told me I should be buying into smaller Tourneys direct (using the £5.50) rather than trying to satellite into the Bigger events ........ as usual, he was right @HAYSIE

    ...... though he once got something wrong ;)

    Hope to see you back soon Phil @Essexphil, when everything is much calmer ..... and particularly when the SPT's are back up and running

    GOOD LUCK wherever you choose to play :)

    Agree with you and I think more freezouts must be better for rec players, I satted in to a couple of the larger tournies, £50 and £100 rebuys knowing that I couldn't rebuy if I was low on chips but I wanted a chance to play in them, I know why they do them but more of a balance is surely the way head.
    In part, world events overtook Sky.

    What would have been a poorly-balanced Series became a terrible one, through no fault of theirs. Let's see what the Mini UKOPS schedule brings. Although the player pool will be very different.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    HAYSIE said:

    I will try harder to say something sensible this time.

    If we go back to the days pre-lockdown, many of the tournaments relied upon re-entries to cover the guarantees.

    I suppose the alternative is to stop the re-entries and reduce the guarantees.

    The effect of this would surely be to encourage fewer players, and therefore reduce guarantees further.

    Re-entries obviously increase prize pools.

    Most players would surely prefers increased prize pools.

    The re-entry facility will encourage some players to play in a different way.

    I know I have made calls in the knowledge I could re-enter if busting out.

    There is a huge difference between re-entry tourneys, and rebuys, although Sky often use the term rebuy, when they should call them re-entries.

    When you enter a rebuy, you know what you are getting yourself into, and know you will need at least 3 buy ins.

    If you used the main as an example, using the one re-entry available, a min cash means you will still lose money.

    No limit on re-entries obviously gives the better players an advantage.

    The example of a player entering 6 times is surely a red herring.

    This is surely something that happens rarely.

    You would probably need a ft finish to cover your buy in.

    There is no doubt in my mind that anyone might have a different view on this topic if they had just won three UKOPS main events.

    I started a thread once questioning starting stacks, and was bashed all over the place on the basis of everyone had the same starting stack.

    I would agree that there are many tournaments that now allow a re-entry where they didn't before.

    I haven't done any research on this, but I looked at one tourney the other night where the prize pool seemed to have taken re-entries into account, and paid more places than it would have, if just taking entries into account.

    If this is true then more players getting paid is a good thing.

    It probably comes down to re-entries or lower guaranties.

    It is a balancing act.

    Accept entirely that some tournaments should involve more than 1 entry.
    Anyone think £480,000 v £20,000 is balanced?

    Prize pools do not take re-entries into account in relation to %age of field paid. suspect you were looking at a non-Bounty Hunter, which pay a higher %age.

    Would I have a different view if I had won 3 UKOPS? Yes and no.

    Yes-I would be milking the system for all it was worth in the short-term.

    and No-I would still think it sucked. Because it will damage poker in the medium-term far more. Because without Recs getting a fair shake, there will be no poker.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958

    Great observations Phil. But when in life these days is there a level playing field.

    When i was a child something happened at home, I looked at my dad and stated indignantly thats not fair Dad. He looked back at me and said lifes not fair son and the quicker you learn that the better.

    50 plus years later those words still resonate.

    There is a big world out there.
    With lots of sites that used to be less fair than sky.
    That are becoming a lot fairer in comparison.

    My dad used to say that life is not fair. But check your watch is still there after shaking hands :)
  • 68Trebor68Trebor Member Posts: 1,943
    Essexphil said:

    Great observations Phil. But when in life these days is there a level playing field.

    When i was a child something happened at home, I looked at my dad and stated indignantly thats not fair Dad. He looked back at me and said lifes not fair son and the quicker you learn that the better.

    50 plus years later those words still resonate.

    There is a big world out there.
    With lots of sites that used to be less fair than sky.
    That are becoming a lot fairer in comparison.

    My dad used to say that life is not fair. But check your watch is still there after shaking hands :)

    Not sure whether you can say here, but where you thinking of going?
  • CammykazeCammykaze Member Posts: 1,397
    edited April 2020
    Very interesting points here by all.

    I especially like Haysies recent one. The poker landscape has changed to guaranteed tourneys and the bigger the better.

    Played a tournament once in which was (I think) a £20 + £7 game with a £10 top up or at least close to that. So £30 to pot, £7 to house. Played that game once and never did again despite the tournament being very soft.

    The point was the guarantee was £1000 or so and the house had to up to rake to cover the potential loss in the entries not paying rake. I had not asked the manager why the rake was so high and why the guarantee had to be £1000 as it is not known for having 30+ player fields.

    Guarantees are king and have been for a few years now. Sky are doing what any other casino/online poker site are doing. Certain players lose out while other gain. That's life! Do not need to play the UKOPS if it is not for you. Vote with feet as they say.

    I am delighted at the player pool records as hitting the massive player entries and guarantees is very good news for the Sky business. It is also good for a lot of players who could not afford the larger UKOPS events. New blood!

    Like a few who may have missed out on the UKOPS there then the MINI UKOPS seems to be in the pipeline. That's more my bankroll level.

  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    68Trebor said:

    Essexphil said:

    Great observations Phil. But when in life these days is there a level playing field.

    When i was a child something happened at home, I looked at my dad and stated indignantly thats not fair Dad. He looked back at me and said lifes not fair son and the quicker you learn that the better.

    50 plus years later those words still resonate.

    There is a big world out there.
    With lots of sites that used to be less fair than sky.
    That are becoming a lot fairer in comparison.

    My dad used to say that life is not fair. But check your watch is still there after shaking hands :)

    Not sure whether you can say here, but where you thinking of going?
    Good question.

    One of the enormous strengths of Sky is that it is honest and brave enough to have a forum where that sort of question can be asked.

    Which is precisely why I would rather not say.

    Although I intend to try lots of sites that I haven't played in a while, as well as increasing volume on others.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    Cammykaze said:

    Very interesting points here by all.

    I especially like Haysies recent one. The poker landscape has changed to guaranteed tourneys and the bigger the better.

    Played a tournament once in which was (I think) a £20 + £7 game with a £10 top up or at least close to that. So £30 to pot, £7 to house. Played that game once and never did again despite the tournament being very soft.

    The point was the guarantee was £1000 or so and the house had to up to rake to cover the potential loss in the entries not paying rake. I had not asked the manager why the rake was so high and why the guarantee had to be £1000 as it is not known for having 30+ player fields.

    Guarantees are king and have been for a few years now. Sky are doing what any other casino/online poker site are doing. Certain players lose out while other gain. That's life! Do not need to play the UKOPS if it is not for you. Vote with feet as they say.

    I am delighted at the player pool records as hitting the massive player entries and guarantees is very good news for the Sky business. It is also good for a lot of players who could not afford the larger UKOPS events. New blood!

    Like a few who may have missed out on the UKOPS there then the MINI UKOPS seems to be in the pipeline. That's more my bankroll level.

    In part, poker sites and casinos are undoubtedly led by punters.

    I have never understood why guarantees (as opposed to number of entrants) are held to be so important. The pay-out %ages will be identical (excepting if there is overlay). But I am in the minority there.

    £20 plus £7 is a live thing. It is because space, dealers, and free soft drinks, cost money.

    Player numbers are at a high not seen for many years. This is due to the lack of alternatives, rather than anything else.

    Mini UKOPS will be an opportunity for Sky and players alike. Whatever Sky choose to do, numbers will not be a problem this time around, particularly for the 8:30 MTT.
  • K0BAYASHlK0BAYASHl Member Posts: 2,027
    HAYSIE said:

    Enut said:

    Sorry to hear that you've had a rough time recently Phil. A couple of points if I may -

    AA v @MattBates KK is a flip, in fact he is probably a slight favorite, you should know this.

    Secondly, it's not the variance that's the problem it's the timing of the variance. In your post you mentioned you got lucky with AK v AA then lost with AA v J10, thus losing the advantage of that small amount of run good.

    I have had it a couple of times in the last few weeks. I ran like God in the early stages of a freeroll for main event seats a while back. I didn't lose an all in including dishing out probably 3 or 4 bad beats. Sadly that run fell short of actually getting a seat as I finished about 10th or so out of 700 ish (from memory) and won zilch.

    Then had the same in another freeroll, again using up a few of my limited bad beat allowance in order to cash for £2 or something.

    Those sort of runs in the later stages of a decent MTT would be worth a fair few quid I'm sure.

    I wasn't aware of a rebuy issue with Sky, was there not just a chance that the player happened to have exactly the starting stack?

    Anyway, I hope you run better in the future you just need a few more muppets to try and bluff you off full houses (you probably don't remember the hand but it wasn't my best ever play, it made sense to me at the time, trying to bluff a high pocket pair on something like a JJJ97 board, when I did in fact have A7, you hade me crushed with 93 and were never folding that!)

    I waffle too much, have a good bank holiday.

    I don't know much about poker, but AA is 81% against KK, and definitely not a flip.
    Not sure how you missed the joke in that post lol
  • CammykazeCammykaze Member Posts: 1,397
    edited April 2020
    Essexphil said:

    Cammykaze said:

    Very interesting points here by all.

    I especially like Haysies recent one. The poker landscape has changed to guaranteed tourneys and the bigger the better.

    Played a tournament once in which was (I think) a £20 + £7 game with a £10 top up or at least close to that. So £30 to pot, £7 to house. Played that game once and never did again despite the tournament being very soft.

    The point was the guarantee was £1000 or so and the house had to up to rake to cover the potential loss in the entries not paying rake. I had not asked the manager why the rake was so high and why the guarantee had to be £1000 as it is not known for having 30+ player fields.

    Guarantees are king and have been for a few years now. Sky are doing what any other casino/online poker site are doing. Certain players lose out while other gain. That's life! Do not need to play the UKOPS if it is not for you. Vote with feet as they say.

    I am delighted at the player pool records as hitting the massive player entries and guarantees is very good news for the Sky business. It is also good for a lot of players who could not afford the larger UKOPS events. New blood!

    Like a few who may have missed out on the UKOPS there then the MINI UKOPS seems to be in the pipeline. That's more my bankroll level.

    In part, poker sites and casinos are undoubtedly led by punters.

    I have never understood why guarantees (as opposed to number of entrants) are held to be so important. The pay-out %ages will be identical (excepting if there is overlay). But I am in the minority there.

    £20 plus £7 is a live thing. It is because space, dealers, and free soft drinks, cost money.

    Player numbers are at a high not seen for many years. This is due to the lack of alternatives, rather than anything else.

    Mini UKOPS will be an opportunity for Sky and players alike. Whatever Sky choose to do, numbers will not be a problem this time around, particularly for the 8:30 MTT.
    I agree with the guarantees over the entrants comment completely. Seeing through a casinos eyes and maybe from a punters perspective £1000 is a lot more eye-catching than a £600 guarantee. They are taking a risk and they can change the game seemingly whenever they like.

    There was a well known American owned casino operating in Britain a couple of years back that pulled the guarantee while the tournament was ongoing. I was not there that day thankfully as that would have been hard to stomach. Maybe someone can pitch in with more info as I don't have the full facts here.

    I have not been a tournament regular since 2010 or so at a casino. I am not paying £7 for rake for space, dealers or drinks as I would not get any benefit from them.

    Lack of alternatives? Is that the lack of poker sites/more with people being indoors or a bit of both?



  • Phantom66Phantom66 Member Posts: 5,542
    Interesting thoughts Phil.

    Hope you stick on the forum even if you are buying your chips elsewhere for a while.
  • CammykazeCammykaze Member Posts: 1,397
    edited April 2020


    There is a world of difference between Rebuys and Re-Entries. People know what they are getting into with Rebuys. Re-entry MTTs? Not so much.

    Satelliting into bigger events brings me to another interesting point.

    Suppose you are trying to satt into a £100 plus £10 Main.
    The qualifier says £24, £22 plus£2. But that is not always true.

    If you are a Rec, and playing for your first seat, you are getting entry into a £100 MTT. You see, you are paying rake twice-once for the qualifier (£22 plus£2) and on the 1 in 5 chance you qualify (£100 plus £10). So in reality you are playing a £20 plus £4 rake qualifier.

    Whereas somebody who already has a seat is given £110 cash, not a seat in a £100 MTT. Who can then re-enter for £100, not £110.

    So-in essence-Recs pay double Rake. So winning players don't have to.



    Just re-read this post again to digest better.

    I can only say that I'm glad I hadn't played many of these types of satellites as that is a bit of a sore one for someone who is concerned about site rakes.

    Had always had wondered why a few of the players registered for the tournament and then continued to play the satellites and assumingly nightly. Fair play!


  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,524
    edited April 2020
    Cammykaze said:

    There is a world of difference between Rebuys and Re-Entries. People know what they are getting into with Rebuys. Re-entry MTTs? Not so much.

    ?


    Satelliting into bigger events brings me to another interesting point.

    Suppose you are trying to satt into a £100 plus £10 Main.
    The qualifier says £24, £22 plus£2. But that is not always true.

    If you are a Rec, and playing for your first seat, you are getting entry into a £100 MTT. You see, you are paying rake twice-once for the qualifier (£22 plus£2) and on the 1 in 5 chance you qualify (£100 plus £10). So in reality you are playing a £20 plus £4 rake qualifier.

    There is a rake on each game you play.
    It is idiotic to say that by qualifying via a number of sats you pay more rake.
    On your argument you should just pay the £110, and forget sats.
    When it is possible to win a £110 seat for £5.20.



    Continuing to play sats, after winning a seat, is a personal choice, and there may be better tournaments to enter.


    Whereas somebody who already has a seat is given £110 cash, not a seat in a £100 MTT. Who can then re-enter for £100, not £110.

    It is a seat in a £110 mtt, if you include the rake.
    You cant enter without paying the rake.
    Both players can re-enter for £100


    So-in essence-Recs pay double Rake. So winning players don't have to.


    So you are really arguing that you are getting ripped off on the rake, if you play 10 of the £5.20 sats, and the 3 semis.

    Let me get this right.
    You are arguing that there is somehow a difference when,
    Playing a £22 plus £2 sat
    One in five qualify, and therefore get a £110 seat, or £110 cash if they already have a seat.



    Just re-read this post again to digest better.

    I can only say that I'm glad I hadn't played many of these types of satellites as that is a bit of a sore one for someone who is concerned about site rakes.

    Had always had wondered why a few of the players registered for the tournament and then continued to play the satellites and assumingly nightly. Fair play!




    The post was nonsense.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,524
    edited April 2020
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    I will try harder to say something sensible this time.

    If we go back to the days pre-lockdown, many of the tournaments relied upon re-entries to cover the guarantees.

    I suppose the alternative is to stop the re-entries and reduce the guarantees.

    The effect of this would surely be to encourage fewer players, and therefore reduce guarantees further.

    Re-entries obviously increase prize pools.

    Most players would surely prefers increased prize pools.

    The re-entry facility will encourage some players to play in a different way.

    I know I have made calls in the knowledge I could re-enter if busting out.

    There is a huge difference between re-entry tourneys, and rebuys, although Sky often use the term rebuy, when they should call them re-entries.

    When you enter a rebuy, you know what you are getting yourself into, and know you will need at least 3 buy ins.

    If you used the main as an example, using the one re-entry available, a min cash means you will still lose money.

    No limit on re-entries obviously gives the better players an advantage.

    The example of a player entering 6 times is surely a red herring.

    This is surely something that happens rarely.

    You would probably need a ft finish to cover your buy in.

    There is no doubt in my mind that anyone might have a different view on this topic if they had just won three UKOPS main events.

    I started a thread once questioning starting stacks, and was bashed all over the place on the basis of everyone had the same starting stack.

    I would agree that there are many tournaments that now allow a re-entry where they didn't before.

    I haven't done any research on this, but I looked at one tourney the other night where the prize pool seemed to have taken re-entries into account, and paid more places than it would have, if just taking entries into account.

    If this is true then more players getting paid is a good thing.

    It probably comes down to re-entries or lower guaranties.

    It is a balancing act.

    Accept entirely that some tournaments should involve more than 1 entry.
    Anyone think £480,000 v £20,000 is balanced?

    Prize pools do not take re-entries into account in relation to %age of field paid. suspect you were looking at a non-Bounty Hunter, which pay a higher %age.

    Would I have a different view if I had won 3 UKOPS? Yes and no.

    Yes-I would be milking the system for all it was worth in the short-term.

    and No-I would still think it sucked. Because it will damage poker in the medium-term far more. Because without Recs getting a fair shake, there will be no poker.
    I would agree that is a balancing act.

    I have not thought about the changes that have been made to the site very deeply.

    I suppose many players just think about how any change may affect them.

    I look forward to playing the main each day.

    On the one hand I have thought of the one re-entry allowed as a Godsend, when busting out early.

    On the other hand I think you can obviously overdo re-entries, and rebuys.

    Although both are within your control.

    Just because they are available, nobody is forced into using them.

    I don't know if there are any stats available on the number of tourneys being won by those that re-enter/rebuy the most.

    I don't even think about it.

    Only players that have played on the site for some time will have an opinion, as if you had joined in the last few months you would probably think it is the norm.

    Sky have chosen to try and maintain the guarantees, by introducing re-entries.

    I suppose that if the suits didn't think guarantees were important, they wouldn't do any.

    Many players are disappointed when they see the guarantees being reduced.

    I think that stopping re-entries would undoubtedly reduce the guarantees in many cases, but also encourage some players to look elsewhere, which would reduce the guarantees further, forcing more players to look elsewhere, and so on.

    Do you never re-enter?

    Or rebuy too many times?

    I think that Sky have chosen this path and would find it really difficult, if not impossible to change course.

    When I bust out of a tourney I just accept it, I don't want to conduct an investigation on how many times the winner re-entered/ rebought, I just get on with the next one.

    Everyone knows the rules before entering, sometimes it probably doesn't pay to look into them too deeply.

    I also had a disastrous UKOPS, but fortunately didn't post a diary of it.


    I am not sure how you see this as damaging, as most of the tourneys discussed are applicable to the more experienced players rather than new recruits.
Sign In or Register to comment.