1) Buyins- all tables 20bb min 100bb max,(can we have suggested amount to 100bb not 40bb)
Why make the buy-ins at all tables this restrictive? A range of buy-in tables at each level (all clearly indicated) would surely be preferable so that those who prefer to play short and those who prefer to play deep can choose. I see nothing to be gained by forcing people who like to play short to play on another site. I can't say that I'm bothered about the "suggested amount" either - it's simple enough to click on "maximum".
2) Types of games - Get rid of all fixed limit and pot limit games no one plays them just clutters lobby up.
These types of games can easily be removed from your personal lobby by using the filters in the lobby. It would be useful if all selected filters were retained between sessions (if this is not already the case).
3) Blind levels - Get rid of all different levels e.g. 80nl,100nl,200nl,300nl,400nl,500nl. I would suggest having 5NL,10NL,20NL,50NL,100NL,200NL,500NL,1000NL. Just daft having so small increments.
Again, I see nothing to be gained from this. Just because you choose not to play at other levels doesn't mean that those who choose to should be penalised. Many people like to work their way up through the levels and would feel restricted if they had to make significant step-ups in levels.
4) When people sit out either they have lost there stack or taking a break can we make it a standard 5 min, theres not enough time to have a break and people who have lost their stack seem to be left there ages.
Removing people who have lost their stack in a more timely manner would be useful. If the break were longer than 5 minutes then I wonder if it would be abused by people sitting out and occupying a chair. I can see no reason for people doing this but some poker players are strange. An automatic top-up facility would be great.
Mere novice, thanks for your opinions, 1) Reason I suggested this is to stop people buying in for 10 bb. Short stackers are really important for the game but for example last night I sat at 200nl with £200 3 people joined me with £20, it just aint poker. 2) Not really that bothered about this was just an idea I thought would tidy things up. 3) I play 80 to 500nl. There are two reasons for this idea, firstly to make the blinds easy round numbers just to make life easier and secondly I try to get higher games going at the site and I think if there wasnt so many different levels people would get in the habbit of playing 500nl and we could get a few tables going everyday, rather than 1 day 1 300nl table next 1 400nl table etc etc.
Mere novice, thanks for your opinions, 1) Reason I suggested this is to stop people buying in for 10 bb. Short stackers are really important for the game but for example last night I sat at 200nl with £200 3 people joined me with £20, it just aint poker. 2) Not really that bothered about this was just an idea I thought would tidy things up. 3) I play 80 to 500nl. There are two reasons for this idea, firstly to make the blinds easy round numbers just to make life easier and secondly I try to get higher games going at the site and I think if there wasnt so many different levels people would get in the habbit of playing 500nl and we could get a few tables going everyday, rather than 1 day 1 300nl table next 1 400nl table etc etc. Posted by ajs4385
You're welcome - it's good to see some constructive comments about improving the site.
1) I know that "shorties" annoy some (mainly higher stakes) players. Having some tables where players can't buy in for less than 100bb sounds beneficial but making all tables like this would be far too restrictive in my opinion. I'm more than happy to see someone pull up with £10/£20 at 50NL late at night (and re-buy often!).
3) I think that removing levels like 30NL & 40NL would be counter-productive. I know that there is very little difference between 40NL and 50NL but some players are just happier to play at those levels. I can't comment on 300NL & 400NL since it is extremely unlikely that you will find me playing those stakes and I haven't noticed if you tend to get just 1 or 2 players sitting at each level.
I play 30nl and 40nl before midnight....theyre so much easier than 50nl......and the stacks often get above £50 quite quickly.
But if these levels were scrapped, the same players would have to move to 50nl neway....so wouldnt really make a difference...wud earn more points I spose
Just to let you know, several of the Suits have been up in Glasgow all weekend, & so offline, (we were up there for the SPT), but I received a note from them this morning to say they were taking a look at the ideas suggested by you & others, which I had forwarded to them on Friday. More news from them - or myself - if & when I get it.
They made the same point as me, though - it was a perfectly presented feedback thread, & they asked me to pass on their thanks.
2. have a few tables with 50bb minimum buy in would also be a good idea.
3. If you lose your stack, the auto top up page should pop straight up and u have say 30 secs to a minute to reload, or you are stood from the table. Instead of being sat out for ages which really gets on everyones t1ts!
4. Also on the sit an goes, when you finish a heads up game at say £50 + 2.50 it pops up saying would you like to register for another. When you press yes, it may register you for a turbocharged £50 and not a standard husng that you played previous.
5. Another good addition that another site i play has, is the ability to tag players. Say champion, fish, rock, on tilt etc... So then when you log on, you can check your list and see who and what tables certain players are playing on.
6. Another good suggestion i read above was to be able to ignore a certain player chat, instead of having to turn chat off completely if some tool is being disruptive. This would be a very good idea.
a good thing I noticed on another site. Private tournaments. Where you can invite a bunch of your mates and choose the starting stack and blind levels and buy-in etc.
For example you can have a $5 10 steater sitngo with 15min levels and winner takes all.
I've seen a few of the forum regulars have been doing it with the sitngo's on sky already (i have never been invited) but I think it would be good if you fancied a bit of a long game with your friends.
I have now heard back about this Thread from some of the Suits, who are reviewing it's feedback & comments as stated earlier.
No decision has been made, & it may take a while before any or all is or is not implemented.
But I thought you may like some early reactions, which may lead to more constructive debate - these are informal, off-the-cuff views, not decisions or policy, just me keeping you up to speed - are as follows.
Any changes they make will need to address achieving a balanced response - it'd be no good changing something that pleases 20% of the Site if it displeases 20% or more of the Players, so they are looking at the ideas from all angles.
For example, you may recall about 6 months back that there was a clamour to change the scheduled Deepies (it may just have been the 7pm ones, I don't quite recall) from 6 seater to 10 seaters, & so Sky Poker did make the change - & there was absolute uproar, as the "silent majority" were all incredibly upset, they wanted to retain the 6 seater format. So they have to view these potential changes from all angles. The views expressed on this Forum, by sheer maths, do not represent necessarily the views of the majority, so they have to tread carefully before making a decision.
Some of the changes, particularly the minimum sit-down, may well need agreement from the Regulators, AGCC (Alderney Gaming Control Commission). As you will have guessed, Sky Poker take Compliance very seriously, they need to be squeaky clean. So if they did change the Minimum Pull-Up, that one would need external consultation with AGCC first. Compliance is a VERY complex subject if addressed properly. It's do-able, no doubt at all, if that be the decision, but it has to go through "Process". FWIW, I think Sky Poker might take the view that discriminating against the short-stackers is not, on balance, favourable, but we shall see, in due course.
I'm not sure I fully understand the comments by you & others as to quicker means to re-load. I just press "Cashier" & "MAXIMUM", it's lightning fast, takes less than 3 seconds, so I'm a bit lost on that one, but perhaps I misunderstand the point. Can someone better enlighten me?
Thinning out the various Cash-Game Levels (5NL, 10NL, 20NL, etc) - the first reaction was not to go with this. They do want to offer as much choice as possible, so removing the tiered Table Stakes would go against that. As Liquidity improves - & it is improving on the Cash Tables, but it takes time - the "problem" will fade away, I think.
Cluttered Lobby (NL, PL, FL) - I think the view is likely to be "why not use the Lobby Filter"?
As to the "Sit-Out" issue, there is some confusion over this one, & so it may help if I outline the current parameters for Cash-Game "Sit-Outs".
It is currently NOT Time-Based, but "number of hands" based. As I understand it, at present, on 6 seater Cash Tables, if you are "sat-out" FOUR hands in succession, the software terminates your seat, so to speak. So that one is, again, a "balance" thing. You need to allow players time to take a quick PNB, or "comfort break", & that seems about right & fair to most, I would think. Oddly, it would take FAR longer for the Software to recognize this on a 10 seater Cash-Table, but I'm pretty sure your comments related to 6 Seater play.
So, as you see, it needs a bit of thought. When I was a kid - a while back, between you & me - we used to say "measure twice, cut once", & that's about the strength of it.
I'll post more of their initial reactions as & when I hear them, but please keep the feedback coming in the current reasoned style, as everyone did, as it's really extremely useful, thank you.
AJS & all those who have Posted on the Thread. I have now heard back about this Thread from some of the Suits, who are reviewing it's feedback & comments as stated earlier. No decision has been made, & it may take a while before any or all is or is not implemented. But I thought you may like some early reactions, which may lead to more constructive debate - these are informal, off-the-cuff views, not decisions or policy, just me keeping you up to speed - are as follows. Any changes they make will need to address achieving a balanced response - it'd be no good changing something that pleases 20% of the Site if it displeases 20% or more of the Players, so they are looking at the ideas from all angles. For example, you may recall about 6 months back that there was a clamour to change the scheduled Deepies (it may just have been the 7pm ones, I don't quite recall) from 6 seater to 10 seaters, & so Sky Poker did make the change - & there was absolute uproar, as the "silent majority" were all incredibly upset, they wanted to retain the 6 seater format. So they have to view these potential changes from all angles. The views expressed on this Forum, by sheer maths, do not represent necessarily the views of the majority, so they have to tread carefully before making a decision. Some of the changes, particularly the minimum sit-down, would need agreement from the Regulators, AGCC (Alderney Gaming Control Commission). As you will have guessed, Sky Poker take Compliance very seriously, they need to be squeaky clean. So if they did change the Minimum Pull-Up, that one would need external consultation with AGCC first. Compliance is a VERY complex subject if addressed properly. It's do-able, no doubt at all, if that be the decision, but it has to go through "Process". FWIW, I think Sky Poker might take the view that discriminating againat the short-stackers is not, on balance, favourable, but we shall see, in due course. I'm not sure I fully understand the comments by you & others as to quicker means to re-load. I just press "Cashier" & "MAXIMUM", it's lightning fast, takes less than 3 seconds, so I'm a bit lost on that one, but perhaps I misunderstand the point. Thinning out the various Cash-Game Levels (5NL, 10NL, 20NL, etc) - the first reaction was not to go with this. They do want to offer as much choice as possible, so removing the tiered Table Stakes would go against that. As Liquidity improves - & it is improving on the Cash Tables, but it takes time - the "problem" will fade away, I think. Cluttered Lobby (NL, PL, FL) - I think the view is likely to be "why not use the Lobby Filter"? As to the "Sit-Out" issue, there is some confusion over this one, & so it may help if I outline the current parameters for Cash-Game "Sit-Outs". It is currently NOT Time-Based, but "number of hands" based. As I understand it, at present, on 6 seater Cash Tables, if you are "sat-out" FOUR hands in succession, the software terminates your seat, so to speak. So that one is, again, a "balance" thing. You need to allow players time to take a quick PNB, or "comfort break", & that seems about right & fair to most, I would think. Oddly, it would take FAR longer for the Software to recognize this on a 10 seater Cash-Table, but I'm pretty sure your comments related to 6 Seater play. So, as youi see, it needs a bit of thought. When I was a kid - a while back, between you & me - we used to say "measure twice, cut once", & tghat's about the strngth of it. I'll post more of their initial reactions as & when I hear them, but please keep the feedback coming in the current reasoned style, as everyone did, as it's really extremely useful, thank you. Posted by Tikay10
For me, when I lose say half my stack in a hand, I want to reload for the next hand so I don't miss out on maximum value for the next one but often I am not quick enough. I also have an OCD about keeping my stack at exactly the max buyin, which can be a pain having to reload every time I lose a small blind. This would be even worse for people like AJS and Beaneh playing 10+ tables. I think that's what they was getting at anyway.
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : For me, when I lose say half my stack in a hand, I want to reload for the next hand so I don't miss out on maximum value for the next one but often I am not quick enough. I also have an OCD about keeping my stack at exactly the max buyin. This would be even worse for people like AJS and Beaneh playing 10+ tables. I think that's what they was getting at anyway. PS - Check PM's Posted by Cowgomoo
Thanks, received, replied, received reply, et al. Next case.
a good thing I noticed on another site. Private tournaments. Where you can invite a bunch of your mates and choose the starting stack and blind levels and buy-in etc. For example you can have a $5 10 steater sitngo with 15min levels and winner takes all. I've seen a few of the forum regulars have been doing it with the sitngo's on sky already (i have never been invited) but I think it would be good if you fancied a bit of a long game with your friends. I know it isnt cash tables. Sorry. Posted by Mr_Miyagi
hi mr miyagi.
you dont have to be invited. you just need to register around 10pm.
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : Done, & I'm on the case, leave it with me please. By the way, I got your PM - identically - EIGHT times! It is cos I'm old? Posted by Tikay10
Lol sorry about that Tikay... 8 times! I must have kept clicking send if the web browser was not loading quick enough!!
I have replied now, and thanks so much for your quick action, I owe you one!
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : For me, when I lose say half my stack in a hand, I want to reload for the next hand so I don't miss out on maximum value for the next one but often I am not quick enough. I also have an OCD about keeping my stack at exactly the max buyin, which can be a pain having to reload every time I lose a small blind. This would be even worse for people like AJS and Beaneh playing 10+ tables. I think that's what they was getting at anyway. PS - Check PM's Posted by Cowgomoo
yeah this, playing more than 8 tables your having to click that top up box almost constantly and it takes a bit to appear sometimes so would be nice to just not have to worry about it.
As to the "Sit-Out" issue, there is some confusion over this one, & so it may help if I outline the current parameters for Cash-Game "Sit-Outs". It is currently NOT Time-Based, but "number of hands" based. As I understand it, at present, on 6 seater Cash Tables, if you are "sat-out" FOUR hands in succession, the software terminates your seat, so to speak. So that one is, again, a "balance" thing. You need to allow players time to take a quick PNB, or "comfort break", & that seems about right & fair to most, I would think. Oddly, it would take FAR longer for the Software to recognize this on a 10 seater Cash-Table, but I'm pretty sure your comments related to 6 Seater play. Posted by Tikay10
How does this work on the heads up table. I sat down on one and the other player was sat out. I waited for a while but got bored and went and found a 6-seater. Obviously no hands are being dealt so is it time based?
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : For me, when I lose say half my stack in a hand, I want to reload for the next hand so I don't miss out on maximum value for the next one but often I am not quick enough. I also have an OCD about keeping my stack at exactly the max buyin, which can be a pain having to reload every time I lose a small blind. This would be even worse for people like AJS and Beaneh playing 10+ tables. I think that's what they was getting at anyway. PS - Check PM's Posted by Cowgomoo
wat wat
Play more first person shooters, I am lightening quick smashing the 'get more chips' and max button..... i've had a lot of practice :-O
I think the only thing that really NEEDS acting on is the short stacks.
Other poker sites ie the big two have relatively recently started to address the problem, their solution was to offer a range of buyin settings for each limit, some 'shallow games' (10-40bb) some deep games (100-250bb) and some normal games (40-100bb). This seems like a good idea. It seems kind of pointless having people sit with £20 at 1/2 when the standard open is 8 and lots of hands are being 3 bet to 32.
I don't think anyone should be stopped from playing but for the sake of the games it would be best to sort the minimum buyin settings.
edit also fwiw the people who sit short would be better off moving down anyway so this may help them.
Also I'd like more than 4 hands to go to the loo please. No seriously, please.
4 hands?!? how far away is your loo?!!?
Sometimes that's 4 folds preflop, sometimes thats 4 5 way limped pots which are minbet minraised 3 way to the river which obviously takes about a week. So somedays I need to insta pee and be back in my seat in a minute and a half and some days I can do a number 2 wash my hands and put the kettle on. 4-5 mins would be perfect.
I think the main problem with people being stacked is that they probably close the window and close their browser so having not pressed stand up sky things their still there but maybe disconnected? so that makes them stay in their seat for longer than they would normally.
Comments
Why make the buy-ins at all tables this restrictive? A range of buy-in tables at each level (all clearly indicated) would surely be preferable so that those who prefer to play short and those who prefer to play deep can choose. I see nothing to be gained by forcing people who like to play short to play on another site.
I can't say that I'm bothered about the "suggested amount" either - it's simple enough to click on "maximum".
2) Types of games - Get rid of all fixed limit and pot limit games no one plays them just clutters lobby up.
These types of games can easily be removed from your personal lobby by using the filters in the lobby. It would be useful if all selected filters were retained between sessions (if this is not already the case).
3) Blind levels - Get rid of all different levels e.g. 80nl,100nl,200nl,300nl,400nl,500nl. I would suggest having 5NL,10NL,20NL,50NL,100NL,200NL,500NL,1000NL. Just daft having so small increments.
Again, I see nothing to be gained from this. Just because you choose not to play at other levels doesn't mean that those who choose to should be penalised. Many people like to work their way up through the levels and would feel restricted if they had to make significant step-ups in levels.
4) When people sit out either they have lost there stack or taking a break can we make it a standard 5 min, theres not enough time to have a break and people who have lost their stack seem to be left there ages.
Removing people who have lost their stack in a more timely manner would be useful.
If the break were longer than 5 minutes then I wonder if it would be abused by people sitting out and occupying a chair. I can see no reason for people doing this but some poker players are strange.
An automatic top-up facility would be great.
1) Reason I suggested this is to stop people buying in for 10 bb. Short stackers are really important for the game but for example last night I sat at 200nl with £200 3 people joined me with £20, it just aint poker.
2) Not really that bothered about this was just an idea I thought would tidy things up.
3) I play 80 to 500nl. There are two reasons for this idea, firstly to make the blinds easy round numbers just to make life easier and secondly I try to get higher games going at the site and I think if there wasnt so many different levels people would get in the habbit of playing 500nl and we could get a few tables going everyday, rather than 1 day 1 300nl table next 1 400nl table etc etc.
1) I know that "shorties" annoy some (mainly higher stakes) players. Having some tables where players can't buy in for less than 100bb sounds beneficial but making all tables like this would be far too restrictive in my opinion. I'm more than happy to see someone pull up with £10/£20 at 50NL late at night (and re-buy often!).
3) I think that removing levels like 30NL & 40NL would be counter-productive. I know that there is very little difference between 40NL and 50NL but some players are just happier to play at those levels. I can't comment on 300NL & 400NL since it is extremely unlikely that you will find me playing those stakes and I haven't noticed if you tend to get just 1 or 2 players sitting at each level.
Hi ajs & Co.
Just to let you know, several of the Suits have been up in Glasgow all weekend, & so offline, (we were up there for the SPT), but I received a note from them this morning to say they were taking a look at the ideas suggested by you & others, which I had forwarded to them on Friday. More news from them - or myself - if & when I get it.
They made the same point as me, though - it was a perfectly presented feedback thread, & they asked me to pass on their thanks.
2. have a few tables with 50bb minimum buy in would also be a good idea.
3. If you lose your stack, the auto top up page should pop straight up and u have say 30 secs to a minute to reload, or you are stood from the table. Instead of being sat out for ages which really gets on everyones t1ts!
4. Also on the sit an goes, when you finish a heads up game at say £50 + 2.50 it pops up saying would you like to register for another. When you press yes, it may register you for a turbocharged £50 and not a standard husng that you played previous.
5. Another good addition that another site i play has, is the ability to tag players. Say champion, fish, rock, on tilt etc... So then when you log on, you can check your list and see who and what tables certain players are playing on.
6. Another good suggestion i read above was to be able to ignore a certain player chat, instead of having to turn chat off completely if some tool is being disruptive. This would be a very good idea.
For example you can have a $5 10 steater sitngo with 15min levels and winner takes all.
I've seen a few of the forum regulars have been doing it with the sitngo's on sky already (i have never been invited) but I think it would be good if you fancied a bit of a long game with your friends.
I know it isnt cash tables. Sorry.
By the way, I got your PM - identically - EIGHT times!
It is cos I'm old?
MORE SKILLED GAME
AJS & all those who have Posted on the Thread.
I have now heard back about this Thread from some of the Suits, who are reviewing it's feedback & comments as stated earlier.
No decision has been made, & it may take a while before any or all is or is not implemented.
But I thought you may like some early reactions, which may lead to more constructive debate - these are informal, off-the-cuff views, not decisions or policy, just me keeping you up to speed - are as follows.
Any changes they make will need to address achieving a balanced response - it'd be no good changing something that pleases 20% of the Site if it displeases 20% or more of the Players, so they are looking at the ideas from all angles.
For example, you may recall about 6 months back that there was a clamour to change the scheduled Deepies (it may just have been the 7pm ones, I don't quite recall) from 6 seater to 10 seaters, & so Sky Poker did make the change - & there was absolute uproar, as the "silent majority" were all incredibly upset, they wanted to retain the 6 seater format. So they have to view these potential changes from all angles. The views expressed on this Forum, by sheer maths, do not represent necessarily the views of the majority, so they have to tread carefully before making a decision.
Some of the changes, particularly the minimum sit-down, may well need agreement from the Regulators, AGCC (Alderney Gaming Control Commission). As you will have guessed, Sky Poker take Compliance very seriously, they need to be squeaky clean. So if they did change the Minimum Pull-Up, that one would need external consultation with AGCC first. Compliance is a VERY complex subject if addressed properly. It's do-able, no doubt at all, if that be the decision, but it has to go through "Process". FWIW, I think Sky Poker might take the view that discriminating against the short-stackers is not, on balance, favourable, but we shall see, in due course.
I'm not sure I fully understand the comments by you & others as to quicker means to re-load. I just press "Cashier" & "MAXIMUM", it's lightning fast, takes less than 3 seconds, so I'm a bit lost on that one, but perhaps I misunderstand the point. Can someone better enlighten me?
Thinning out the various Cash-Game Levels (5NL, 10NL, 20NL, etc) - the first reaction was not to go with this. They do want to offer as much choice as possible, so removing the tiered Table Stakes would go against that. As Liquidity improves - & it is improving on the Cash Tables, but it takes time - the "problem" will fade away, I think.
Cluttered Lobby (NL, PL, FL) - I think the view is likely to be "why not use the Lobby Filter"?
As to the "Sit-Out" issue, there is some confusion over this one, & so it may help if I outline the current parameters for Cash-Game "Sit-Outs".
It is currently NOT Time-Based, but "number of hands" based. As I understand it, at present, on 6 seater Cash Tables, if you are "sat-out" FOUR hands in succession, the software terminates your seat, so to speak. So that one is, again, a "balance" thing. You need to allow players time to take a quick PNB, or "comfort break", & that seems about right & fair to most, I would think. Oddly, it would take FAR longer for the Software to recognize this on a 10 seater Cash-Table, but I'm pretty sure your comments related to 6 Seater play.
So, as you see, it needs a bit of thought. When I was a kid - a while back, between you & me - we used to say "measure twice, cut once", & that's about the strength of it.
I'll post more of their initial reactions as & when I hear them, but please keep the feedback coming in the current reasoned style, as everyone did, as it's really extremely useful, thank you.
you dont have to be invited. you just need to register around 10pm.
its a first come first served basis.
Posted by Tikay10
How does this work on the heads up table. I sat down on one and the other player was sat out. I waited for a while but got bored and went and found a 6-seater. Obviously no hands are being dealt so is it time based?
x