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.
You clearly don't understand this, Haysie. So i will try and explain it again.
In your words, "it is idiotic to say that by qualifying via a number of sats you pay more rake". Really?
Suppose you are the average player. Who qualifies on the exact Mean:-1-in-5. They have paid £120. To play in a £100 value tournament (plus £10 rake).
Now you can certainly argue that people have had the benefit of playing for a greater amount of time. True. Or that they have utilised extra resources, for which they should pay rake. Also true.
Until you compare and contrast that with the re-entries. Who get similar benefits. without paying any rake on the re-entry. By that self-same analogy, you could charge £20 plus £2 for the qualifier. It would not be rake-free. It would charge once, rather than twice. No other site, to my knowledge, has this disparity between qualifiers and re-entrants.
Where do you want your incentives to go. To the unique entries? Or to the re-entries?
I will try harder to say something sensible this time.
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.
You misunderstand what I am trying to say.
My main point is not that there are too many rebuys/re-entries, although that is important.
You are correct that re-entries are used as a tool to try and reduce the risk of overlay. It is being used too much-so (for example) have it on the Main, or anything with over an £8,000 guarantee. In times when guarantees are not being smashed.
It is that the rake-free incentives are given to the Regs, and not the Recs. You could reduce the effective 20% rake on qualifiers. You could have a balancing act between rake on 1st entry or re-entry.
Because pretty much everywhere else does one or other.
It would be easier to read your thoughts if your replies weren't in Bold too, which means we have to try and work out which bits are the initial post, and which are your replies.
Perhaps you could check by using the 'Preview' button before you post, and having your replies in normal type (not Bold) ...... or better still, highlight your replies in RED, obviously for WALES, and not for the colour of your face with the steam coming out of your ears
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.
You clearly don't understand this, Haysie. So i will try and explain it again.
In your words, "it is idiotic to say that by qualifying via a number of sats you pay more rake". Really?
Suppose you are the average player. Who qualifies on the exact Mean:-1-in-5. They have paid £120. To play in a £100 value tournament (plus £10 rake).
Now you can certainly argue that people have had the benefit of playing for a greater amount of time. True. Or that they have utilised extra resources, for which they should pay rake. Also true.
Until you compare and contrast that with the re-entries. Who get similar benefits. without paying any rake on the re-entry. By that self-same analogy, you could charge £20 plus £2 for the qualifier. It would not be rake-free. It would charge once, rather than twice. No other site, to my knowledge, has this disparity between qualifiers and re-entrants.
Where do you want your incentives to go. To the unique entries? Or to the re-entries?
I still think it is nonsense.
You have to pay the rake on the semi.
After the rake the five entries amount to exactly £110.
Whether you buy in, or qualify via a satellite, you can re-enter rake free.
Jez was arguing about people playing sats for cash.
He was making the point that if you had aleady won a seat you got £110 cash, but if you hadn't you just got a £100 seat.
This is not true as the seat costs £110.
Going on your argument in the same scenario, you could only get £100 or a rake free seat.
If this was the case then everyone would surely just play sats all day, rake free, and Sky are out of business.
It would be easier to read your thoughts if your replies weren't in Bold too, which means we have to try and work out which bits are the initial post, and which are your replies.
Perhaps you could check by using the 'Preview' button before you post, and having your replies in normal type (not Bold) ...... or better still, highlight your replies in RED, obviously for WALES, and not for the colour of your face with the steam coming out of your ears
"It probably doesn't pay to look into them too deeply?
Priceless. Particularly from a man with a 300-page thread.
That is quite easy you just delete a bit of the older text.
What I meant was that when Sky introduced the re-entries on a small scale, I didn't think beyond how it would affect me. I wasn't thinking about how this may affect the planet, or other players, as they should be capable of voicing their own opinions. I believed that it had become a choice of reducing guarantees, or allowing re-entries. I would prefer the guarantees to be maintained. As the re-entries were introduced more widely, this choice became more obvious. I don't have a clue how the re-entries affect my chances of winning any particular tournament. That is something that I don't even want to consider. Everyone has the same opportunity to re-enter, but don't have to. Everyone can choose which tourneys they play.
I wasn't arguing about sat's for cash, which is something I try and do if I've already qualified, because you can win £110, at least half the min. cash prize (which most people don't even manage to win) in the Tourney itself.
All I was saying is that I don't play Rebuys at all, because you know it will cost you nearly double with the Add-on, or more with a Rebuy, and that the re-entry means that people do punt off their stacks more because they can afford to re-enter.
What I was trying to say was that it would have been nice to have some different stack sizes in the Mini's (especially the MEGAmini, instead of every one being 3000 chips, and encouraging re-entries.
I agree that re-entries should be available (possibly only one though) to ensure there isn't overlay. After all, we want to see SKYPOKER prosper, so it may continue in it's current format.
It would be easier to read your thoughts if your replies weren't in Bold too, which means we have to try and work out which bits are the initial post, and which are your replies.
Perhaps you could check by using the 'Preview' button before you post, and having your replies in normal type (not Bold) ...... or better still, highlight your replies in RED, obviously for WALES, and not for the colour of your face with the steam coming out of your ears
It would be easier to read your thoughts if your replies weren't in Bold too, which means we have to try and work out which bits are the initial post, and which are your replies.
Perhaps you could check by using the 'Preview' button before you post, and having your replies in normal type (not Bold) ...... or better still, highlight your replies in RED, obviously for WALES, and not for the colour of your face with the steam coming out of your ears
Any thoughts on sats that are played by less than 5 players, and you still win a seat?
Or 3 players shove the first hand to avoid late entries, and still win a seat?
I wasn't arguing about sat's for cash, which is something I try and do if I've already qualified, because you can win £110, at least half the min. cash prize (which most people don't even manage to win) in the Tourney itself.
All I was saying is that I don't play Rebuys at all, because you know it will cost you nearly double with the Add-on, or more with a Rebuy, and that the re-entry means that people do punt off their stacks more because they can afford to re-enter.
What I was trying to say was that it would have been nice to have some different stack sizes in the Mini's (especially the MEGAmini, instead of every one being 3000 chips, and encouraging re-entries.
I agree that re-entries should be available (possibly only one though) to ensure there isn't overlay. After all, we want to see SKYPOKER prosper, so it may continue in it's current format.
That's strange, because this is what you actually said.
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.
This was my reply.
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.
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 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.
On the stack sizes, I have argued this before, as I like a big starting stack.
The arguments against were that everyone gets the same starting stack, and bigger stacks have an effect on finishing times, which can be an issue particularly during the week.
Reducing the number of rebuys would also be a factor these days.
I can remember the days before late entries, and missing out on the main because it had reached maximum entries.
I often phoned people as close as possible to 8pm, to log in and register me.
This was a balancing act, between being able to enter and not losing many chips before I got home.
I used to play on the telly in those days using the remote, with her indoors shouting at me for any co ck ups.
This chat about Rake on Satellites and re-entry by @Essexphil is top stuff, recs are being hit. I also moved some of my DYM games onto other sites with less rake .
Ham, I remember the days when you played Sky Poker thought the Red Box.
You could only use pre-set chat.
*Rapturous applause*
*Idiot"
Lord only knows what the then Suits were thinking when they included *Idiot" in the pre-set chat Menu.
In all seriousness I think it was a massive mistake when Sky tried to change the original coverage into an intelligent poker programme. If it had not changed I think we might still be seeing large numbers joining Sky Poker to see themselves on telly playing ridiculous hands stupidly, and referring friends and family to follow in their footsteps. Those were the days.
I wasn't arguing about sat's for cash, which is something I try and do if I've already qualified, because you can win £110, at least half the min. cash prize (which most people don't even manage to win) in the Tourney itself.
All I was saying is that I don't play Rebuys at all, because you know it will cost you nearly double with the Add-on, or more with a Rebuy, and that the re-entry means that people do punt off their stacks more because they can afford to re-enter.
What I was trying to say was that it would have been nice to have some different stack sizes in the Mini's (especially the MEGAmini, instead of every one being 3000 chips, and encouraging re-entries.
I agree that re-entries should be available (possibly only one though) to ensure there isn't overlay. After all, we want to see SKYPOKER prosper, so it may continue in it's current format.
That would mean getting a seat in 2 out of the 3 semis.
Comments
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.
You clearly don't understand this, Haysie. So i will try and explain it again.
In your words, "it is idiotic to say that by qualifying via a number of sats you pay more rake". Really?
Suppose you are the average player. Who qualifies on the exact Mean:-1-in-5. They have paid £120. To play in a £100 value tournament (plus £10 rake).
Now you can certainly argue that people have had the benefit of playing for a greater amount of time. True. Or that they have utilised extra resources, for which they should pay rake. Also true.
Until you compare and contrast that with the re-entries. Who get similar benefits. without paying any rake on the re-entry. By that self-same analogy, you could charge £20 plus £2 for the qualifier. It would not be rake-free. It would charge once, rather than twice. No other site, to my knowledge, has this disparity between qualifiers and re-entrants.
Where do you want your incentives to go. To the unique entries? Or to the re-entries?
It would be easier to read your thoughts if your replies weren't in Bold too, which means we have to try and work out which bits are the initial post, and which are your replies.
Perhaps you could check by using the 'Preview' button before you post, and having your replies in normal type (not Bold) ...... or better still, highlight your replies in RED, obviously for WALES, and not for the colour of your face with the steam coming out of your ears
Wall of text prevents it...
But I agree with you on 1 thing.
You haven't thought about it too deeply.
"It probably doesn't pay to look into them too deeply?
Priceless. Particularly from a man with a 300-page thread.
You clearly don't understand this, Haysie. So i will try and explain it again.
In your words, "it is idiotic to say that by qualifying via a number of sats you pay more rake". Really?
Suppose you are the average player. Who qualifies on the exact Mean:-1-in-5. They have paid £120. To play in a £100 value tournament (plus £10 rake).
Now you can certainly argue that people have had the benefit of playing for a greater amount of time. True. Or that they have utilised extra resources, for which they should pay rake. Also true.
Until you compare and contrast that with the re-entries. Who get similar benefits. without paying any rake on the re-entry. By that self-same analogy, you could charge £20 plus £2 for the qualifier. It would not be rake-free. It would charge once, rather than twice. No other site, to my knowledge, has this disparity between qualifiers and re-entrants.
Where do you want your incentives to go. To the unique entries? Or to the re-entries?
I still think it is nonsense.
You have to pay the rake on the semi.
After the rake the five entries amount to exactly £110.
Whether you buy in, or qualify via a satellite, you can re-enter rake free.
Jez was arguing about people playing sats for cash.
He was making the point that if you had aleady won a seat you got £110 cash, but if you hadn't you just got a £100 seat.
This is not true as the seat costs £110.
Going on your argument in the same scenario, you could only get £100 or a rake free seat.
If this was the case then everyone would surely just play sats all day, rake free, and Sky are out of business.
I love your argumentative style.
Just ignore the facts. Don't let them get in the way. Keep ploughing on.
there are lots of £100 seats available. Just not to the first-time entrants.
Not everything you do not understand is nonsense...
Which facts have I ignored?
What I meant was that when Sky introduced the re-entries on a small scale, I didn't think beyond how it would affect me.
I wasn't thinking about how this may affect the planet, or other players, as they should be capable of voicing their own opinions.
I believed that it had become a choice of reducing guarantees, or allowing re-entries.
I would prefer the guarantees to be maintained.
As the re-entries were introduced more widely, this choice became more obvious.
I don't have a clue how the re-entries affect my chances of winning any particular tournament.
That is something that I don't even want to consider.
Everyone has the same opportunity to re-enter, but don't have to.
Everyone can choose which tourneys they play.
I wasn't arguing about sat's for cash, which is something I try and do if I've already qualified, because you can win £110, at least half the min. cash prize (which most people don't even manage to win) in the Tourney itself.
All I was saying is that I don't play Rebuys at all, because you know it will cost you nearly double with the Add-on, or more with a Rebuy, and that the re-entry means that people do punt off their stacks more because they can afford to re-enter.
What I was trying to say was that it would have been nice to have some different stack sizes in the Mini's (especially the MEGAmini, instead of every one being 3000 chips, and encouraging re-entries.
I agree that re-entries should be available (possibly only one though) to ensure there isn't overlay. After all, we want to see SKYPOKER prosper, so it may continue in it's current format.
Or 3 players shove the first hand to avoid late entries, and still win a seat?
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.
This was my reply.
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.
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 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.
On the stack sizes, I have argued this before, as I like a big starting stack.
The arguments against were that everyone gets the same starting stack, and bigger stacks have an effect on finishing times, which can be an issue particularly during the week.
Reducing the number of rebuys would also be a factor these days.
I can remember the days before late entries, and missing out on the main because it had reached maximum entries.
I often phoned people as close as possible to 8pm, to log in and register me.
This was a balancing act, between being able to enter and not losing many chips before I got home.
I used to play on the telly in those days using the remote, with her indoors shouting at me for any co ck ups.
You don't know you are born.
Ham, I remember the days when you played Sky Poker thought the Red Box.
You could only use pre-set chat.
*Rapturous applause*
*Idiot"
Lord only knows what the then Suits were thinking when they included *Idiot" in the pre-set chat Menu.
Don't think I ever got thunderous applause.
If it had not changed I think we might still be seeing large numbers joining Sky Poker to see themselves on telly playing ridiculous hands stupidly, and referring friends and family to follow in their footsteps.
Those were the days.
Tough.
To be fair, they balanced that by having me as an analyst...