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.
Popped in to play a session after a few months....
TheWaddy
Member Posts: 1,592
in Poker Chat
And yes.... absolutely awful players, playing hold em within a hi lo game... that just could not lose however hard they tried, over and over and over...... not mathematically possible to survive every one like they were doing for a couple of hours...one day eh, one day, regulators will regulate... what a day that will be!
Comments
All good games have the capacity to allow weaker players to win a decent percentage of the time. That is how the game (and others like it) survives. Because if the best hand always won, all of the weaker players would have left years ago. Nothing to do with the software-everything to do with the way poker works.
There are lots of different levels of poker player. At one end is the professional-at the other, the player who just plays for fun.
Without the players who play for fun, the game gets a lot harder to make a decent profit. Why have so many of them gone? Lots of reasons. But 1 of the major ones is people exactly like you. People who berate others' play. Criticise them constantly.
Because you suck the fun out of it for them. £1 games should have lots of purely recreational players. But they do not. Because of people like you. Not because you are a better player than them.
Because, instead of quietly taking their money, you belittle them.
You are entitled to your blinkered opinion. Poker would mirror the real game online by now and would have done so for a good 10yrs... But doesnt because of people like you.
Instead we have a playstation version... because those with influence who know **** well the score, but make more online than they can in the real game, choose to bum lick these sites in exchange for their soul.
I stand up for the real game, as im a poker fan. You guys who support online sites, have sold out for their own greed.
Apparently you are a profitable player, despite whatever you're dislike of how the cards are dealt ....... so why don't you just shut up and enjoy making a profit.......
I thought Poker was about enjoying people making wrong decisions against you, 'coz you know it's profitable long term
........or don't you think like that T'Waddy????
Given that any hand you win is through skill and any you lose is a software conspiracy.
Do you think luck even factors in?
After a long discussion they settled on rigging the £1 heads up omaha hi lo games on Sky Poker, so that they could get an extra 50pence rake from you
If you think when a brand decides to enter the market of online poker, that all is discussed is making money purely through small tournaments fees and rake, with nothing built in... knowing at most times there will be only 500 players logged in, most of them just talking poker on a forum... then its a really trusting, but massively naiive view!
You managed to get 5 'lol's' on this reply, which shows the incredible widespread misunderstanding of business sense.
There is not a company in the world, that would even bother considering constructing a 500 player site, unless the edges to make it profitable were in place, nevermind brands of this size.
Players of all your opinions clearly have no business sense. You seem to home in on the £1 tournament and the little that they make from it.... yet absolutely every tournament and cash game attracts a very modest return for them. Its only the sheer volume and traffic that can keep a site going... so the only answer is to maintain, increase and retain players. So how do you think they do that?
Your opinion is that they simply take a punt and let things take their own course.
No company on earth does that.
Also remember Sky isn't just a poker site: it's a betting site that offers a modest poker offering to its customers with a very low cost base.
Sky Poker is probably not a bad little business. Take a look at the points earned by some players during take races. Often the rake equates to four figures GBP per week for a number of players.
You've surfaced again posting the same theory without anything new to add.
Its just your opinion and your opinion isn't convincing anyone.
If you had evidence or proof then you have something.
But you haven't and you don't.
I warn you.
It is not legal to bring accusations of corruption to a public place without proof.
Making baseless accusations can be considered defamation, which is a civil offense that can result in legal action against the person making the accusations.
In some cases, it could even lead to criminal charges, such as slander or libel.
It is important to have evidence and facts to support any accusations of corruption before making them publicly.
but I think LIBEL is written ......and SLANDER is spoken.
I'm sure FLUTTER aren't too concerned about these unfounded accusations on a Forum
after all ...... It's just T'WADDLE
You seem to believe that a site would risk losing it's regs in order to keep the occasional rec happy for a few days / weeks by being dishonest and yet surely it's the long term regs who are the sites bread and butter.
It just appears that your logic is somewhat skewed.
It doesn't matter who wins or loses at the tables, the business makes it's money and every company on earth would like that.
You can name any other form of gambling online and there is an edge for the house, which everyone is aware of. Are you considering slots corrupt, as believe me, the wins are not random and there is a percentage return (its there in the small print). There is a green zero on the roulette table, which prevents black/red bets winning, zone bets winning.... is that corrupt? In online Blackjack the dealer gets a 10 first card like 95% of the time. Do you consider virtual horse racing to be random, or do you think there may be an element that takes into account which horses have been backed heavily in the outcome? etc etc etc
You know the answer to all these questions.
But you believe online poker is the only form of virtual gambling where they have decided to let it run naturally... despite you all knowing that an element that could aid player retention and increase rake would be beneficial to sites, regardless of if you believe that happens or not. But just in this one area of a huge amount of online gambling games, they have decided a house edge would be wrong.
For some reason, they have decided that although they do it in every form of online gambling, which people accept and still play and gamble away their disposable income (some beyond that, hence regulation), they have decided poker is untouchable.
Its incredibly nice of them. They have given the poker player incredible respect, where as all the other gamblers, they treat as chumps. Arent we lucky?
HOW DO YOU NOT SEE that the 'house edge' in poker comes from EVERYBODY who plays & pays rake - they do not care who wins.
btw... What do you think your HU win % would/should be if it were a fair game? 90%?
How do you not see that when the house edge is exactly that, then its clear that there will be conversations on how to extract the maximum from this.... how can you not see that if sites have in an involvement in the outcome, this benefits them in maintaining site player numbers and also in increasing rake?
Would it help if i put it in capitals for you? Even if you dont believe it happens, there would be a clear advantage for sites to share out the wins more than odds dictate, thus helps player retention (the more players on site, the site makes more through fees/rake) and also to enhance hands to create more through rake.
You can believe that sites dont actually do this.... however you can not deny that sites would make more money if they did. So at the very least, you would have to acknowledge it is something that is open to abuse when regulation is so slack, no-one would ever look at it.
I find it amusing that when the answer is they would absolutely make more money by not having a totally random deck, that you find someone an imbecile for suggesting it happens. You have all lived very sheltered lives!
So you’re saying because there is a green zero on a roulette wheel creating an edge, the casino then exploits that edge by making it land there more often? Wouldn’t that create a scenario where the player can exploit the game by betting on zero. Why would the casino enhance the edge in this way instead of, y’know, adding a double zero to the wheel?
You seem to be confusing events being random with the house edge. The rules/rake create the edge, everything else is random.