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.
Missing
jubbley
Member Posts: 189
I used to watch sky poker a lot and it is hardly on now do we know why? its always repeats so to be honest why is it the case that sky has more players now so they say but less tv coverage?
Comments
They now have 3 Live Shows per week, & 4 or 5 recorded Shows per week. Making TV is VERY expensive, & produces no return as such, essentially it's a Marketing tool.
They just decided, I guess, to use the Promotional Budget in different ways.
They have been on three Live TV Shows + 5 Pre-Records per week for almost a year now, & during that time, site traffic has shown continued double-digit growth, & continues now. At a time when, if you saw their results this week, three big (including TWO UK-based & facing) Poker Rooms all reported double-digit falls in traffic & revenue, it seems to suggest that the current TV schedule is about the right balance.
We would all wish to show more Tourneys on Telly, but it's just incredibly expensive, & the numbers in the last 12 months justify the decision.
A shame, but numbers are numbers.
Anyway, i would love even just that extra show a week, and loonytoons said even one that just shows hands, maybe a cheap narator (spelling again) over the top. Be like watching Morgan Freeman playing poker. However dont do that Poker Heaven thing PLEASE sky that thing bores me (player in seat 2 folds)
What would make excellent viewing imo would be live coverage of the WSOP qualifier semi's where we could cheer on our favourites to qualify and get your excellent running commentary on the played hands. How's about that for an idea.
The good players are very good but because it is essentially a gambling site, there are a lot more gamblers who are weak players.
Added to that a very good bonus system for new players, this site will continue to grow for a long while yet, even without the TV.
That is why more people seem to whine about bad beats here, because more players willing to gamble so the bad cards will be shown more often.
I would suspect that a large majority of players on here either watch, or have in the past watched the TV shows and taken on board the advice and tips given by the presenters which would explain the high level of competancy among a lot of the players on here.
I don't believe that it's down to a lack of skill on my part (or I would like to believe so), as I play on other sites at the same levels and use the same tactics there with a modicum of success which I have found difficult to achieve on here.
But bumping into some of the players on here who have now become well known to sky viewers as their skills have improved in earlier days convinced me that I was playing a little out of my depth against them.
I still play in the odd free rolls on here and would probably re-deposit at some time if I could (for some reason this site doesn't like my Mastercard) just to try and see if things have changed. At the end of the day we would all like to be winning the odd shilling or two which why we play where we do.
Good luck at the tables!
My view on the cash games here is that are by far the easiest to beat. I am primarily as tournament player and that is where most of my winnings come from. Yet all my profit on here comes from cash games.
(the hot-o-meter) prob helps, its so inaccurate lol).
I find the structures of the tournies so bad that it quickly becomes a lottery. I do well in the deepstacks but the others, ahhhhh!!! (not a moan, my own choice where i play).
Maybe playing the same way on all sites is a problem for you?
For instance, on here I am quite a calling station. But on another site I play that wouldnt work and I am overly loose aggressive. On a third site I am tight aggressive. And that can change from table to table too. Evennow I am playing 2 tables completely different, keeps people guessing
They really have topless women doing sign language?
Great debate.
It boils down to how the promotional spend "cake" is sliced up.
Everyone, not un-naturally, or unreasonably, wants more of everything, & these things all cost money. It remains very hard to extract a quart from a pint pot, or whatever the metric equivelant is these days.
TV Channel, Forum, Cash for Points, PTP, TKO, Freerolls, SPT, & much much more, are all designed to appeal to as wide a cross-section of the market as possible. And whatever way you cut that cake, there will be some who say "we want more of this, that or the other". It's just not possible to please everyone.
The TV Channel has an important role to play, but costs a fortune, hence there is less Live stuff than there used to be. All of us, almost without exception, would like more Live coverage, but few of us would be prepared to pay for it, either directly, or via a reduction in other Promotions.
The reduction in TV Live Shows coincided with the introduction of the "Community", which is another cost, though arguably one whiich garners more bangs per buck than TV, on a £ for £ basis.
The current model seems to be working, so I don't imagine (a personal, & not an informed view) that we will see an increase or decrease in Live TV coverage in the near-term.
As I mentioned yesterday, no less than three major Online Rooms reported their numbers "to the City" recently. One was worldwide, the world's 2nd largest in fact, the other two both own UK High-Street Betting Chains, one being primarily UK facing, the other UK & Scandanavia facing. Poker "numbers" were down, on average, 20%. Sky Bet, which includes Sky Poker, also reported their numbers recently (this is no secret, it is "in the domain") - they reported strong growth in all divisions (Bet, Vegas, Bingo, OddsChecker, & Poker), & Poker in particular reported "vigorous growth" in traffic.
I think we will see continued investment in the (fairly young) product, but I'd be surprised if the way the promotional spend cake is currently being sliced will chnge much, as the numbers suggest the balance is close to optimal.
As to those who suggest "no commentary, Analysts or Presenters", I'm afraid that would barely affect the cost of the Channel. It takes over 20 people to produce & present a Show, plus the cost of equipment, Studio, office, etc. Slicing two fees off that - Presenter & Analyst - would make no significant difference, even though rumour has it that Rich Orford charges over £25 per shift. Analysts of course, are paid far less than Presenters.