sit & go satellites?

hoyski

how about doing sit & go satellites for the 8pm £33 entry tournaments?
a six seater £5.50 satellite and a ten seater £3.30 satellite?

hoyski

sorry two tables with 5 on each....oops! for the £3.30 sat

Tikay10

@hoyski


I'll pass that on, thank you, but they do already have an extensive range of Main Event satellites which seem to work quite well.

MattBates

I maybe wrong but I think these were tried before and weren't popular.

hoyski

Thanks guys just an idea, thought it would be maybe a bit more convenient for some players not having to play at a set time.
played on here for a while now can't remember there being sit & go sats but my memory is pants lol which is not really good for a poker player!

Essexphil

This is a good idea. It should have worked last time, but it is true to say that it did not.

There needs to be a balance between people who play sats for cash, and those that just want to enter the main tournament. This could be an opportunity to provide that balance.

Let's take the Sunday Main as an example, though it would be mostly similar for other days. The 6 pm sat works brilliantly. The 7:15 late sat works quite well, and the 1 in 10 sats at 05 past the hour are mostly running.

What rarely runs are the single seater 1 in 5 sats. The reason is simple-there are always the same 2 or 3 people registered, who are always among the biggest winners on the site. Consequently, no-one else enters, and they usually do not run.

It seems fair to me to allow people to play sats for cash. But not all the time. It would be fair not to allow anyone who already has a seat to play the single seat sats. Then people could still get their first seat via this route, but not subsequent ones. That way, people could play the single seater sats with a more level playing field.

And they might actually run.

MattBates

Essexphil said:

This is a good idea. It should have worked last time, but it is true to say that it did not.

There needs to be a balance between people who play sats for cash, and those that just want to enter the main tournament. This could be an opportunity to provide that balance.

Let's take the Sunday Main as an example, though it would be mostly similar for other days. The 6 pm sat works brilliantly. The 7:15 late sat works quite well, and the 1 in 10 sats at 05 past the hour are mostly running.

What rarely runs are the single seater 1 in 5 sats. The reason is simple-there are always the same 2 or 3 people registered, who are always among the biggest winners on the site. Consequently, no-one else enters, and they usually do not run.

It seems fair to me to allow people to play sats for cash. But not all the time. It would be fair not to allow anyone who already has a seat to play the single seat sats. Then people could still get their first seat via this route, but not subsequent ones. That way, people could play the single seater sats with a more level playing field.

And they might actually run.

It's great saying that but how would that work practically? It's not like the software is top of the range.
Would people not reg all the sats at the start of the session then reg the target event? You thinking the software is capable of unregging players once they have qualified?

When we get new software it would be good if sats could be looked at and maybe you could have a way of restricting entry to some sats and awarding tickets rather than cash from sats.

Essexphil

MattBates said:

Essexphil said:

This is a good idea. It should have worked last time, but it is true to say that it did not.

There needs to be a balance between people who play sats for cash, and those that just want to enter the main tournament. This could be an opportunity to provide that balance.

Let's take the Sunday Main as an example, though it would be mostly similar for other days. The 6 pm sat works brilliantly. The 7:15 late sat works quite well, and the 1 in 10 sats at 05 past the hour are mostly running.

What rarely runs are the single seater 1 in 5 sats. The reason is simple-there are always the same 2 or 3 people registered, who are always among the biggest winners on the site. Consequently, no-one else enters, and they usually do not run.

It seems fair to me to allow people to play sats for cash. But not all the time. It would be fair not to allow anyone who already has a seat to play the single seat sats. Then people could still get their first seat via this route, but not subsequent ones. That way, people could play the single seater sats with a more level playing field.

And they might actually run.

It's great saying that but how would that work practically? It's not like the software is top of the range.
Would people not reg all the sats at the start of the session then reg the target event? You thinking the software is capable of unregging players once they have qualified?

When we get new software it would be good if sats could be looked at and maybe you could have a way of restricting entry to some sats and awarding tickets rather than cash from sats.

I appreciate that the software is pre-war, bordering on pre-posterous, but it might not be as bad as you think.

Managed to restrict SPT qualifiers to 3 seats not so long ago. Managed to avoid giving anyone more than 1 free seat at the online 1. Most events manage to be restricted to 1 rebuy. So I see no reason why, IF Sky wanted to, they could not do this now. As an example, create a holding tank for people who have qualified-it's hardly rocket science. In addition, can soon identify players flouting any new rules.

Tickets are often the answer on other sites, but probably not the whole answer for Sky. There are far more high-volume Regs playing sats here than on other sites. And relatively few pre-reg to take more cash.

Doubleme

Essexphil said:

MattBates said:

Essexphil said:

This is a good idea. It should have worked last time, but it is true to say that it did not.

There needs to be a balance between people who play sats for cash, and those that just want to enter the main tournament. This could be an opportunity to provide that balance.

Let's take the Sunday Main as an example, though it would be mostly similar for other days. The 6 pm sat works brilliantly. The 7:15 late sat works quite well, and the 1 in 10 sats at 05 past the hour are mostly running.

What rarely runs are the single seater 1 in 5 sats. The reason is simple-there are always the same 2 or 3 people registered, who are always among the biggest winners on the site. Consequently, no-one else enters, and they usually do not run.

It seems fair to me to allow people to play sats for cash. But not all the time. It would be fair not to allow anyone who already has a seat to play the single seat sats. Then people could still get their first seat via this route, but not subsequent ones. That way, people could play the single seater sats with a more level playing field.

And they might actually run.

It's great saying that but how would that work practically? It's not like the software is top of the range.
Would people not reg all the sats at the start of the session then reg the target event? You thinking the software is capable of unregging players once they have qualified?

When we get new software it would be good if sats could be looked at and maybe you could have a way of restricting entry to some sats and awarding tickets rather than cash from sats.

I appreciate that the software is pre-war, bordering on pre-posterous, but it might not be as bad as you think.

Managed to restrict SPT qualifiers to 3 seats not so long ago. Managed to avoid giving anyone more than 1 free seat at the online 1. Most events manage to be restricted to 1 rebuy. So I see no reason why, IF Sky wanted to, they could not do this now. As an example, create a holding tank for people who have qualified-it's hardly rocket science. In addition, can soon identify players flouting any new rules.

Tickets are often the answer on other sites, but probably not the whole answer for Sky. There are far more high-volume Regs playing sats here than on other sites. And relatively few pre-reg to take more cash.

I really dont want to see this site go the way of GG. people should not be penalised for playing certain games or sitting on certain tables.

here is an issue I have looked at my results and it turns out I have been running hot lately when I thought I was getting bad luck. I worked out my expected ev and it was horrifying I only make like £40/£50 a night. this is not because I suck, My win rate on £5 and £10 bounties is very competitive its just their is not the volume of games on this site. I can step up to £20 and £33 bounties but there are not a lot of these and I need to cash out to move money to other sites. its like I can get the same volume of games on another site or spend ages saving bankroll for two or three extra tournaments. So I thought fine I will try satalites to get more profit. I did very well in them last night but I still find with a 2k bankroll playing actual £33 and £55 tournaments even if qualified by sat is too swingy. Last night I only made like £26 or so ran bad in mtts but did well in sats if I had just taken the £55 and £33 cash instead of tournament entry I would be up £77 more then I was.

Sky does not have the game volume going to make any serious cash in mtts so cant blame people for targeting sats to make some more income.

Maybe adding in sit and go mtts like 30 man sit and goes might help for game volume?

Just my thoughts but please dont go the way of GG and start having silly vague rules which results in peoples bankrolls been seized and bans for vague offences that are not clear. If we go that way I will have to leave sky and I really do not want to do that. If we dont want people playing certain games or bumhunting or etc we can change the software for that purpose instead, eg tournament tokens instead of cash if you already qualified/are bought in.

What I like about sky is that it has much lower variance then other sites because of its small field tournaments. Other sites I will have more games and be profitable too but because of large fields I go on big downswings before big cashes. Just it does not offer enough mtts in itself to allow a reasonable income.

Essexphil

Doubleme said:

Essexphil said:

MattBates said:

Essexphil said:

This is a good idea. It should have worked last time, but it is true to say that it did not.

There needs to be a balance between people who play sats for cash, and those that just want to enter the main tournament. This could be an opportunity to provide that balance.

Let's take the Sunday Main as an example, though it would be mostly similar for other days. The 6 pm sat works brilliantly. The 7:15 late sat works quite well, and the 1 in 10 sats at 05 past the hour are mostly running.

What rarely runs are the single seater 1 in 5 sats. The reason is simple-there are always the same 2 or 3 people registered, who are always among the biggest winners on the site. Consequently, no-one else enters, and they usually do not run.

It seems fair to me to allow people to play sats for cash. But not all the time. It would be fair not to allow anyone who already has a seat to play the single seat sats. Then people could still get their first seat via this route, but not subsequent ones. That way, people could play the single seater sats with a more level playing field.

And they might actually run.

It's great saying that but how would that work practically? It's not like the software is top of the range.
Would people not reg all the sats at the start of the session then reg the target event? You thinking the software is capable of unregging players once they have qualified?

When we get new software it would be good if sats could be looked at and maybe you could have a way of restricting entry to some sats and awarding tickets rather than cash from sats.

I appreciate that the software is pre-war, bordering on pre-posterous, but it might not be as bad as you think.

Managed to restrict SPT qualifiers to 3 seats not so long ago. Managed to avoid giving anyone more than 1 free seat at the online 1. Most events manage to be restricted to 1 rebuy. So I see no reason why, IF Sky wanted to, they could not do this now. As an example, create a holding tank for people who have qualified-it's hardly rocket science. In addition, can soon identify players flouting any new rules.

Tickets are often the answer on other sites, but probably not the whole answer for Sky. There are far more high-volume Regs playing sats here than on other sites. And relatively few pre-reg to take more cash.

I really dont want to see this site go the way of GG. people should not be penalised for playing certain games or sitting on certain tables.

here is an issue I have looked at my results and it turns out I have been running hot lately when I thought I was getting bad luck. I worked out my expected ev and it was horrifying I only make like £40/£50 a night. this is not because I suck, My win rate on £5 and £10 bounties is very competitive its just their is not the volume of games on this site. I can step up to £20 and £33 bounties but there are not a lot of these and I need to cash out to move money to other sites. its like I can get the same volume of games on another site or spend ages saving bankroll for two or three extra tournaments. So I thought fine I will try satalites to get more profit. I did very well in them last night but I still find with a 2k bankroll playing actual £33 and £55 tournaments even if qualified by sat is too swingy. Last night I only made like £26 or so ran bad in mtts but did well in sats if I had just taken the £55 and £33 cash instead of tournament entry I would be up £77 more then I was.

Sky does not have the game volume going to make any serious cash in mtts so cant blame people for targeting sats to make some more income.

Maybe adding in sit and go mtts like 30 man sit and goes might help for game volume?

Just my thoughts but please dont go the way of GG and start having silly vague rules which results in peoples bankrolls been seized and bans for vague offences that are not clear. If we go that way I will have to leave sky and I really do not want to do that. If we dont want people playing certain games or bumhunting or etc we can change the software for that purpose instead, eg tournament tokens instead of cash if you already qualified/are bought in.

What I like about sky is that it has much lower variance then other sites because of its small field tournaments. Other sites I will have more games and be profitable too but because of large fields I go on big downswings before big cashes. Just it does not offer enough mtts in itself to allow a reasonable income.

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.

GG is totally different to Sky. always has been. Always will be. As an example, there are currently (as I type this) 156,000 players on GG. As opposed to about 1100 on Sky. With games at every bankroll (although none at PLO8).

No-one is ever going to "penalise" any player for playing Sats. Anywhere. The question is where the correct balance lies between encouraging new players via sats and giving sufficient opportunity to winning regs.

I'm rather surprised that you haven't realised you have been running hot lately. It looks as though you have made roughly the same in the last 8 weeks as you have in the preceding 6 years.

If you believe you cannot make a reasonable income playing on Sky, then you either need to treat it as a marginally profitable hobby, or play elsewhere. But it is easier making a profit on Sky than most other places.

Meanwhile, Sky will change. Not necessarily for better or worse. But it will change. When its software allows it to. And I hope that it continues to allow people to play sats for cash.

Just not all the time.

Doubleme

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.

GG is totally different to Sky. always has been. Always will be. As an example, there are currently (as I type this) 156,000 players on GG. As opposed to about 1100 on Sky. With games at every bankroll (although none at PLO8).

No-one is ever going to "penalise" any player for playing Sats. Anywhere. The question is where the correct balance lies between encouraging new players via sats and giving sufficient opportunity to winning regs.

I'm rather surprised that you haven't realised you have been running hot lately. It looks as though you have made roughly the same in the last 8 weeks as you have in the preceding 6 years.

If you believe you cannot make a reasonable income playing on Sky, then you either need to treat it as a marginally profitable hobby, or play elsewhere. But it is easier making a profit on Sky than most other places.

Meanwhile, Sky will change. Not necessarily for better or worse. But it will change. When its software allows it to. And I hope that it continues to allow people to play sats for cash.

Just not all the time.

your very probably right for what is midstakes/highstake on sky. However for low stake games £5 and £10 etc I see very fishy bad play across all sites even pokerstars who I have pegged as the toughest site around. I saw on one site for 5 euro games people open shoving in unopened pots 150+ blinds deep. its not a spot I am really prepared for I just call of with AK and QQ+ seen KJ as a shove and A6 off but its kind of hard to get exactly right since everyone can change their name daily on this site and some people will shove only AA KK and AK so I think my guide of AA KK QQ and AK been the call of range works about right.

the issue isnt my ability here it is simply lack of games hence why I am looking at sats to get more games in.

I think there are other options other then move to another site or just treat poker as a hobby, I can play on other sites at the same time as sky. as I have been doing. the issue is often on sky I have found myself with only 2 or 3 tables going which is not ideal.

I do work outside of poker just I have been furloughed until further notice and I may as well make as much of the opportunity for potential double income as possible.

I think in todays current climate with potential legislation changes to online gambling and the way the industry is moving a career entirely based on poker, is not an ideal move. In normal circumstances if I can make more money from online poker then my day job I could justify quitting my day job as I have a low paying job which would not usually be hard to replace. However in current climate jobs can be very hard to get. If they bring in new regulations with regard to gambling law that makes online poker as an income unavailable I would be screwed if I quit my day job.

I think it unlikely that I would be directly affected by gambling legislation changes since most of the stories are based on people who lose £10,000s in a very short time period, I dont think someone who has not deposited for nearly a year and consistently withdraws would be affected unless they were on GG then they almost certainly would.

If I remember right your a lawyer so I assume you would have more knowledge of gambling law then me, not sure if you would know about changes yet though as I am not sure if anyone knows for sure what rules they will bring in.

In regards to me running hot well yeah but I have been playing a lot more volume recently so if profitable player should expect higher winrate I have also spent time studying poker more and spent money on poker coaching. So I like to think I have definitively improved.


striking the right balance for sats is something up for debate but overall I think its fine as it is. I think more sats that guarantee multiple places will give the weaker players more of a chance. I know if one in five cash technically it should be the same odds of cashing if thats 5 players or 25 players assuming all players of equal ability. However not all players are of equal ability and many weak players are just terrible with short handed play.

Doubleme

qoute thing didnt work properly sorry phil.