I agree with a lot of things you say. I have been lucky enough to go to Vegas with several poker sites, and I would say that Sky is the best by some margin.
But there is another side to this. This year's Vegas SPT is not as good as previous years.
Some time ago this Forum asked whether we would prefer a unique Sky Tournament (as in recent years) or entry to another event, such as a WSOP event. We have ended up with the worst of both worlds-an anonymous $800 (about £650) entry to a Venetian Tournament. So-neither the homeliness of a Sky Tournament, nor the thrill of a WSOP tournament.
Qualifying players into a WSOP event was never an option as we are not licensed to do so. As the feedback on the poll was mainly in preference of playing a big field tournament we opted for this route and went for the best option available but we don't get to decide on the buy in or guarantee hence why it's a bit lower than last year's value.
The next problem is the timing of the event. In previous years, the SPT has coincided with a lot of major poker series throughout Vegas. Not this year-meaning people like me cannot play a variety of Major series while there.
I honestly think you're in a small minority of players who are looking to play major events on the side. Especially when talking about players not willing to buy in directly to quarters/semis which was the original discussion point and is the reason for the failing sats.
The final problem is the cost of the non-poker elements of the SPT. It's £4,000 in total. Less than half of that goes on flight costs (£1,000) and Poker (£650). The Palazzo is a truly luxurious hotel. But the fact remains that there are decent Vegas hotels that are £1,000 a week cheaper.
Sky genuinely offer a great experience. People such as Tikay and Neil, coupled with the social events, make it a truly magical experience.
Thankyou, obviously I'm biased but the Sky community is unmatched.
But, due to the change of event, change of timing, and massive cost of hotel, it's not quite as magical this year.
Which is the simple reason why numbers are way down this year.
This is debatable. Numbers across our other Vegas promotions aren't actually down at all. Satellites have always struggled but now they are at a point where the quarters aren't running and the semis and final are well short of where I'd like. The satellite cost is the same as last year so with inflation you could argue it's a bit cheaper. I could be wrong but I don't think many players are not interested in trying to satellite in because we are going after the WSOP has finished or that the hotel is too expensive. There is so much value in the sats (last Sunday's semi was 6 seats from 12 entries). The finals are more like 1 in 6 not 1 in 10 so how relevant is the £4k value we've approximated? I'm surprised more people aren't taking advantage of the value.
I know people are feeling the pinch more this year and Vegas just gets more expensive so I'd like to think it's this rather than the package being 'not as good'. Perhaps we could up the spending money and reduce the hotel cost but I imagine this would make it more likely for a package winner not to attend. I don't know what the perfect package consists of but I do know it's impossible to please everyone!
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to provide a considered response. I agree with a lot of what you say. When I say "not as good" as previous years, I do not mean to say that it is bad-perhaps "not quite as good" would be more accurate. To put that in perspective, I have not committed as much time/effort this year to trying to secure a package, but I have still played several.
I take your point about the WSOP. But there are a lot of other Series which would have welcomed Sky sending people, from Planet Hollywood to Orleans to Downtown. All of which had Summer Series with Guaranteed Prize Pools to help with your advertising. I think the timing is more important than the Tournament.
I may well be in the minority of people who go to play multiple events. But not a small minority-it encompasses people wanting to play the Main, or a PLO8, or (for the 1st time for me) entry into Super Seniors events at a variety of different venues.
I'm also surprised more people aren't taking advantage of the value. I played in the last Final, and I think there were about 19 entrants with 3 packages. Will remember my 88 on a 987 flop v 10 6 off (and AA bumping it up pre-and on flop) for a while I hope he enjoys Vegas
I'm sure you are right in that the general squeeze via the credit crunch in general and on poker players in particular is a major factor. But that just increases the argument to reduce hotel cost so that "poker" makes up more than about 17% of the "package". Not just for us players-so Sky make more profit.
Finally, 2 quick points:-
1. I was suggesting that any extra spending money be contingent on turning up in Vegas, to avoid the problem you mention. Easily done, particularly when you now save the entry fee for any no-shows 2. There's never going to be a "perfect" package, or even one that it is possible to please most poker players, never mind all of them
Comments
I take your point about the WSOP. But there are a lot of other Series which would have welcomed Sky sending people, from Planet Hollywood to Orleans to Downtown. All of which had Summer Series with Guaranteed Prize Pools to help with your advertising. I think the timing is more important than the Tournament.
I may well be in the minority of people who go to play multiple events. But not a small minority-it encompasses people wanting to play the Main, or a PLO8, or (for the 1st time for me) entry into Super Seniors events at a variety of different venues.
I'm also surprised more people aren't taking advantage of the value. I played in the last Final, and I think there were about 19 entrants with 3 packages. Will remember my 88 on a 987 flop v 10 6 off (and AA bumping it up pre-and on flop) for a while
I'm sure you are right in that the general squeeze via the credit crunch in general and on poker players in particular is a major factor. But that just increases the argument to reduce hotel cost so that "poker" makes up more than about 17% of the "package". Not just for us players-so Sky make more profit.
Finally, 2 quick points:-
1. I was suggesting that any extra spending money be contingent on turning up in Vegas, to avoid the problem you mention. Easily done, particularly when you now save the entry fee for any no-shows
2. There's never going to be a "perfect" package, or even one that it is possible to please most poker players, never mind all of them
Good luck to all those still trying.