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

1567911

Comments

  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    Tikay10 said:

    "In all seriousness I think it was a massive mistake when Sky tried to change the original coverage into an intelligent poker programme."


    To be fair, they balanced that by having me as an analyst...

    True.
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 158,810

    Pfft.

    You did not have to agree, I set it up for you to say "no, you were great".

  • MattBatesMattBates Member Posts: 4,118
    Tikay10 said:


    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.

    I thought it was thunderous applause not rapturous. Anyone else know who is right?
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 158,810

    Yes, it was "thunderous", not "rapturous". HAYSIE was right, for once.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    MattBates said:

    Tikay10 said:


    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.

    I thought it was thunderous applause not rapturous. Anyone else know who is right?
    Agreed, I did say that in my previous post.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    Tikay10 said:


    Pfft.

    You did not have to agree, I set it up for you to say "no, you were great".

    You were, and still are, absolutely brilliant.
  • bbMikebbMike Member Posts: 3,699
    Is the argument for Sky to go back to raking rebuys (which I think I recall people made a lot of fuss over when this was the case in the past?), or for Sky to run rake-free satellites? Or for them to not offer rebuy tournaments at all?
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 158,810
    bbMike said:

    Is the argument for Sky to go back to raking rebuys (which I think I recall people made a lot of fuss over when this was the case in the past?), or for Sky to run rake-free satellites? Or for them to not offer rebuy tournaments at all?

    @bbMike

    Ha, been waiting for someone to raise that one.

    "Burnt or scalded" comes to mind.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    edited April 2020
    bbMike said:

    Is the argument for Sky to go back to raking rebuys (which I think I recall people made a lot of fuss over when this was the case in the past?), or for Sky to run rake-free satellites? Or for them to not offer rebuy tournaments at all?

    An interesting point.

    For me, there is a difference between what everywhere else calls rebuys, and re-entries.

    Of course Sky should offer rebuys. I don't see any reason not to keep rebuys as they are. There are probably the right amount of rebuys in the mix.

    a rake-free satellite would be £20. Not £22 or £24.

    It is the re-entries that have taken over. That have replaced freezeouts (and by that I am including single entry Bounty hunters). Plus the fact that the rake incentives seem to centre exclusively on the re-entry part.

    On an entirely separate issue, the restricted chat still applies on some sites. But the most important issue is this:-

    Who sanctioned getting rid of the "Hot-o-Meter?" :)
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    Tikay10 said:


    Pfft.

    You did not have to agree, I set it up for you to say "no, you were great".

    I went for "lol".

    But I was soooo tempted to hit "abuse" :))
  • MISTY4MEMISTY4ME Member Posts: 6,147
    edited April 2020
    HAYSIE said:

    MISTY4ME said:

    Good Morning Tony @HAYSIE

    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 :)

    MISTY4ME said:

    Good Morning Tony @HAYSIE

    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?
    A thing of the past (in both cases).......and nowadays people don't seem to recognise the value of 1 seat in 3, as opposed to 1 in 5. With the software taking so long to load tables up nowadays, people are often AWAY for the first 2 or 3 hands anyway.

    I think if you go back through the thread Tony @HAYSIE , you will find that it's the other slightly rotund gentleman with less hair than me, who, in answer and using my post, brought up the issues he has with regards to the rake.

    I have no problem with paying the rake on MTT'S, because I thoroughly enjoy what SKYPOKER provide. I do have an issue with the amount of rake on DYM'S though..... but that's a whole new Ball Game. :)
  • DoooobsDoooobs Member Posts: 240
    Essexphil said:

    I dislike re-entry tournaments. always have. always will. Why should someone be able to re-enter? It's called Knocked Out for a reason.

    What made me think deeper about why was a throwaway comment by @Doooobs on 18th March. For the avoidance of doubt, i am in no way attacking him. I don't know him, but know people who do, and all say nothing but nice things.

    The comment was about the £100 Tuesday Summit. There were a total of 122 entries. 6 of those were @Doooobs

    Every poker player looks at the rules, and works them to their advantage. That is part of the game. It is up to the sites to pitch the rules, to attract players

    But let's look at that in closer detail. The Recs had 1 seat. For which they got 10,000 chips. And paid £10 rake.

    A reg had 6 seats. For which they got 60,000 chips. And still paid a total rake of only £10. Because re-entries are rake free.

    Last night's Main had a Re-entry period of over 2.5 hours. And the 1-seaters subsidised the rake for all of those re-entries. 1 seat is raked at 10%. 5 seats (for the same player) are raked at 2%. It could easily have been 5% for every seat. But it wasn't. It never is.

    Which is why, for the bigger events, the total number of entries (as opposed to the unique entries) is becoming increasingly dominated by 20 or so very good players. Because they can not only re-enter, they can do so rake-free.

    Which is why I am going to play elsewhere. Because a site which for many years has been Rec friendly, is rather less friendly now.

    I am sure I will be back playing on sky before long. But not at the volume I have previously done.

    Hi Phil

    The best way to not attack me would be to not include my name in your post, but as you did, I am going to reply.

    Firstly you seem to be a bit confused. I have played less tournaments lifetime on Sky than you have so far this year. I think a reasonable person would assume that you are the reg here and not me.

    When I made that note a month ago it was that something not normal had happened and it wasn't something that I make a habit of. So extrapolating from that to make an argument seems a stretch. I had played precisely 15 £100 bounty hunters lifetime when I looked last night, and given I spewed 5 rebuys that night, it is pretty unlikely I have made a profit playing them (sharkscope misleads here as it asumes I made average rebuys). So if anyone is leaving because I once made 5 rebuys in one £100 bounty hunter, or that I may occasionally make lots of rebuys in other bounty hunters, then you are making a bad calculation. It was a particularly poor decision to make all those rebuys in what was likely to be the most stacked tournament on Sky that week.

    I pretty much don't like bounty hunters, and would be happy if everywhere still did freezeouts (except when travelling along way) and normal rebuys. I have only played a lot of them in the last couple of weeks because I was home and the kids aren't busy. And clearly I am a bit of a mug for UKOPS. If bounty hunters are popular on Sky, and they clearly are, then Sky are entitled to run them, and I just have to accept that. If you think you can go elsewhere to avoid bounty hunters and re-entries these days, then you are out of luck too!

    I think your argument on the extra rake has merit in non bounty hunter tournaments, but not so much when you are talking bounty hunters.

    I think rebuying in bounty hunters is a really dumb thing to do except early on. We all have our leaks and it seems rebuying at dumb times in bounty hunters is pretty high on my list. I made a big effort and stopped doing it on stars, but it seems I have got into the same bad habit of doing so again here on Sky. Half your EV in a bounty hunter is bounties and half is chips. This extra EV from the bounty always goes to the bigger stack in bounty hunters. Even if you are sat at a table with 5 players with even stacks and one with 10% more chips, there is only one player who can take all the bounties there. So his extra 10% chips is worth significantly more in a bounty hunter than a non bounty hunter. This gets worse as time goes on, so somebody rejoining the main 2.5 hours in is going to be at a much bigger disadvantage; nearly everyone in the tournament can take his bounty, but he can take the bounty of very few people. Given the bounty is half the EV in bounty hunters, I think that even with reduced rake, I can conclude pretty much everybody who re-enters late on in a bounty hunter is making a bad gamble. You'd have to be at a table full of right idiots to make it a good gamble anyway.

    The only time you'll be able to get the advantage from paying less rake on the rebuy is if you rebuy very early, and even then you are usually sat with the big stack who has just knocked you outt. So I suspect even then rebuying with zero rake is a bit swings and roundabouts (what you gain on the zero rake, you lose from having the short stack disadvantage vs a bigger stack).

    On a non-bounty hunter it is a bit different, as I think you get much better value late regging and shortstacking in these types of games. Allowing late re-entries in plo8 tournaments is a real bigbear of mine; even with full rake I think you get a big advantage from shortstacking O8 games. There are so few of these non bounty hunters with rebuys on Sky that it isn't really worth worrying about.

    I know I am at played the £530 non-bounty hunter the other day, and I knew I was at a theoretical disadvantage vs those who can do multi rebuys in it and hence pay lower rake as a percentage. I guess it should put me off a bit, but I'd happily play it again tomorrow.

    I think there is very little hope of getting reduced rake on rebuys anyway; I think most sites just made you just pay the orignal rake amount again when they started raking rebuys. I have played on a lot of sites over the years, and I can't remember one reducing entry fees when they started raking rebuys. They may now be "fairer", but it isn't better for any of us. FWIW A lot of those old rebuys elsewhere simply died a death after the raking of rebuys was introduced.

    Finally, if anyone sees me re-entering a bounty hunter late on in the future, please have a word or send a link to this post (sometimes I can't avoid late regging at the start). I might even put this post by my PC next time I play one, and put a big stick next to it to clout myself over the head with it next time I find myself doing so. I am sure I'd have had a better UKOPS if I'd done this. As it was my UKOPS wasn't great either, and I am pretty sure I was down too.

    Cheers. I hope you come back, and we both run better next time.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    Hi @Doooobs

    Thanks for your considered and reasoned reply.

    I wasn't trying to attack you. For 2 reasons. Firstly, I did not have you in mind in relation to re-entries. You do not put in a lot of volume here, as you rightly say.

    And secondly, I have no beef with anyone who does. Good luck to them.

    But, regardless of that, I shouldn't have used your name. Apologies.

    I then started looking who did rebuy on my tables after then, and how I rate them. To which the answer was-rather higher than I had assumed. And rather higher than elsewhere. Because I looked into this closely on another site a while ago.

    I completely agree that, other than early on, it is not often wise to re-enter. But, due to the rake free re-entry, that period is bigger than elsewhere. There is also a period when, even if someone re-enters unwisely, it is still less than -10% EV, which is not necessarily good for me as well as them.

    I think most of us have hit the re-entry button when logic says we shouldn't-I know I have.

    I will be back. There are still re-entry MTTs that are too good to miss, never mind others:) . I fancy a change, anyway.

    Good luck
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    MISTY4ME said:

    HAYSIE said:

    MISTY4ME said:

    Good Morning Tony @HAYSIE

    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 :)

    MISTY4ME said:

    Good Morning Tony @HAYSIE

    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?
    A thing of the past (in both cases).......and nowadays people don't seem to recognise the value of 1 seat in 3, as opposed to 1 in 5. With the software taking so long to load tables up nowadays, people are often AWAY for the first 2 or 3 hands anyway.

    I think if you go back through the thread Tony @HAYSIE , you will find that it's the other slightly rotund gentleman with less hair than me, who, in answer and using my post, brought up the issues he has with regards to the rake.

    I have no problem with paying the rake on MTT'S, because I thoroughly enjoy what SKYPOKER provide. I do have an issue with the amount of rake on DYM'S though..... but that's a whole new Ball Game. :)
    You were specifically moaning about the rake on sats whilst deluding yourself that a min cash in the Sunday Major was about £110.
  • MISTY4MEMISTY4ME Member Posts: 6,147

    You were specifically moaning about the rake on sats whilst deluding yourself that a min cash in the Sunday Major was about £110.


    Tony @HAYSIE ...... have you been drinking? :o:*

    I think you're suffering from some form of UKOPS HANGOVER ......or maybe selective reading, where what someone else has written, you're attributing to me. I am JEZ @MISTY4ME .....and Phil (who was pointing out his issues with the rake) is @Essexphil.

    Secondly, I said nothing of the sort with regards to a min.cash in the Sunday Major being £110...... what I said was....... (taken directly from my post above)

    Hi Tony

    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.

    Hmmmmmmm..... selective reading methinks :*

    Maybe you aren't usually right after all ;)
  • CammykazeCammykaze Member Posts: 1,397
    edited April 2020

    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 .

    It's informative and props to Sky for not censoring. Not that they need to.

    On that point. Do you get better incentives on the DYMs from this other site.

    It's the rakeback/rake thing.

    I will show my hand first.

    It's no secret the TDYMs are seen as unbeatable without promos/rakeback by the majority.

    The rakeback and promo program Sky has is not anything I have came across since the the good old days of 40% and up rakeback deals.

    They engage with the players while seemingly, from my side anyway, are player lead to a decent degree.

    They need to please stakeholders/stars and the business as a whole.

    Do you have this with the other site? BTW, I am not a Sky cheerleader and have some issues with the site however as a whole it's a very good poker site.

    @Tikay can I get that £100 you promised the other day for posting this comment word for word as per your instructions :smiley::lol:
  • CammykazeCammykaze Member Posts: 1,397
    Essexphil said:

    bbMike said:

    Is the argument for Sky to go back to raking rebuys (which I think I recall people made a lot of fuss over when this was the case in the past?), or for Sky to run rake-free satellites? Or for them to not offer rebuy tournaments at all?

    An interesting point.

    For me, there is a difference between what everywhere else calls rebuys, and re-entries.

    Of course Sky should offer rebuys. I don't see any reason not to keep rebuys as they are. There are probably the right amount of rebuys in the mix.

    a rake-free satellite would be £20. Not £22 or £24.

    It is the re-entries that have taken over. That have replaced freezeouts (and by that I am including single entry Bounty hunters). Plus the fact that the rake incentives seem to centre exclusively on the re-entry part.

    On an entirely separate issue, the restricted chat still applies on some sites. But the most important issue is this:-

    Who sanctioned getting rid of the "Hot-o-Meter?" :)
    Hi Phil,

    Would the main issue you raise be the fact that not all players, and perhaps the majority of entrants would not realise the re-entry is rake free?

    Or is it the use of the term rebuy instead of re-entry the key point to your slight displeasure in the thread.

    I would guess the latter, I am close? :D
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 158,810
    edited April 2020
    Ha, I hear you @Cammykaze


    I think most players pay attention to many factors when deciding where to play. If it's pure rakeback they want "I can get 45% on i-poker" well this is probably the wrong site for them. The more reasoned players have a much wider criteria, & consider how (relatively) soft or hard the games are, the schedule, that sort of thing.

    There's plenty wrong with Sky Poker, but no site even remotely approaches Sky Poker's response times when a query comes up on the Forum or there's a software glitch. That's worth a great deal imo, but if people want to go elsewhere & find a better "basket" of pros & cons good luck to them.

    We try never to censor the Forum, though that does allow some very unreasonable comments to be made a about the current Sky Poker staff. They are the best - & far & away the smallest - team who have ever run this place.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    MISTY4ME said:


    You were specifically moaning about the rake on sats whilst deluding yourself that a min cash in the Sunday Major was about £110.

    Tony @HAYSIE ...... have you been drinking? :o:*

    I think you're suffering from some form of UKOPS HANGOVER ......or maybe selective reading, where what someone else has written, you're attributing to me. I am JEZ @MISTY4ME .....and Phil (who was pointing out his issues with the rake) is @Essexphil.

    Secondly, I said nothing of the sort with regards to a min.cash in the Sunday Major being £110...... what I said was....... (taken directly from my post above)

    Hi Tony

    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.

    Hmmmmmmm..... selective reading methinks :*

    Maybe you aren't usually right after all ;)


    If it was anybody else, I would apologise.

    Where is this post?
  • MISTY4MEMISTY4ME Member Posts: 6,147
    edited April 2020
    Essexphil 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 :)

    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.
    7 at 7.... Page 7 - Post 7 .......Tony @HAYSIE

    This was the FIRST one where @Essexphil was replying to my post, and brought up HIS issues with Rake
Sign In or Register to comment.