In Response to Re: Downhill Spiral : Glory be. Eventually, people will work this out, but it's taking a while. Poker is NOT a game against the House. Poker is a game between the players, & the House does not have the slightest interest in which player wins. Sky Poker is part of a very large & reputable organisation, who happen to be OCD about compliancy. The Company is doing very well - very well indeed. Traffic & revenues are all running at record Levels, & there is (are?, I'm unsure of the grammar there) miles of headroom to grow further. Why on earth anyone would think Sky Poker need to mess with something that is clean, honest, & profitable, particularly on such flimsy evidence (think "Sample Size" please) is quite beyond my understanding. It also assumes that the Staff, & I, are stupid, & corrupt. We are neither. Posted by Tikay10
In Response to Re: Downhill Spiral : Fair comment Alan - but you have been round the poker block a few times, & you know how many beans make five. You cannot seriously think Sky Poker is anything except clean, as are the very vast majority of Online Poker Sites. I just don't believe you could possibly think that. And it does irritate when time & time again it is suggested that Sky Poker staff are part of a conspiracy to defraud - because that is what you are suggesting. So I'm sorry for the cheap jibes, but you'd rather face cheap jibes than be described as dishonest, which is what you are suggesting, & which I find grossly offensive. Posted by Tikay10
I haven't accused anyone of anything. I have said that I have been observing what I believe to be anomalies for some time now. Others have also said they are seeing things which don't seem right. I said that I understand your stance on this subject, and I do. That wasn't a veiled suggestion that you are somehow implicated in some major conspiracy, it's simply a knowledge of all the past replies you have made on this and similar threads.
I haven't suggested that Sky Poker is anything but clean. What I have said is that I don't like what I am seeing at the tables. and in the full knowledge that it would be jumped upon. Nevertheless I still see it happening.
Your comments are a complete over-reaction to my post, and it seems you are attempting to personalise this subject, for what reason I don't know.
In Response to Re: Downhill Spiral : I haven't accused anyone of anything. I have said that I have been observing what I believe to be anomalies for some time now. Others have also said they are seeing things which don't seem right. I said that I understand your stance on this subject, and I do. That wasn't a veiled suggestion that you are somehow implicated in some major conspiracy, it's simply a knowledge of all the past replies you have made on this and similar threads. I haven't suggested that Sky Poker is anything but clean. What I have said is that I don't like what I am seeing at the tables. and in the full knowledge that it would be jumped upon. Nevertheless I still see it happening. Your comments are a complete over-reaction to my post, and it seems you are attempting to personalise this subject, for what reason I don't know. Posted by elsadog
Can you not see that those two statements are completely contradictory???
If you think there are "anomolies" in the software, rather than make Forum Posts about them, or at the very least, in addition to them, may I suggest you report them to the Independent Regulator.
It's amazing that players can make these offensive suggestions, without a shred of admissable evidence, day after day, but as soon as someone stands up to them, they go on the defensive.
If you think there are anomolies, you really should take your case to the Independent Regulator.
If I think a supplier, say (hypothetically) Sainsbury's, or Tesco, is diddling me, I report them, every time to the appropriate authority. I see it as my responsibility & duty to my fellow customers.
I bet there have been 1,000 Posts on this Forum suggesting "anomolies" in the software. The address & a Link to the Independent Regulator is at the foot of every Forum Page.
I wonder what the over/under is on how many players have actually reported these anomolies to the Regulator? I would think the line would be set at about 4-5. I'm a seller.
In Response to Re: Downhill Spiral : Glory be. Eventually, people will work this out, but it's taking a while. Poker is NOT a game against the House. Poker is a game between the players, & the House does not have the slightest interest in which player wins. Sky Poker is part of a very large & reputable organisation, who happen to be OCD about compliancy. The Company is doing very well - very well indeed. Traffic & revenues are all running at record Levels, & there is (are?, I'm unsure of the grammar there) miles of headroom to grow further. Why on earth anyone would think Sky Poker need to mess with something that is clean, honest, & profitable, particularly on such flimsy evidence (think "Sample Size" please) is quite beyond my understanding. It also assumes that the Staff, & I, are stupid, & corrupt. We are neither. Posted by Tikay10
This is flawed argument and often used. Poker isn't a game against the house as you rightly say and so on the surface it appears that there is no good reason for any site to have anything other than a completely random deal. However the house does have an interest in who is winning and who is losing.
Poker sites generate their revenue from a number of sources but the largest contributor is the rake. The volume of rake is entirely dependent upon the number of active players on site and so the more players, the more rake, and therefore the more profit generated. All money deposited into a site is split between the rake and the winning players. The money after rake will, over time, find it's way to a very small percentage of players. The large majority of players will lose money both in the short and long term and a large portion of these players will leave the site or go bust. This leaves the site with the ongoing problem of attracting more players from an ever diminishing pool.
In a perfect (made for poker sites) world, the skill differences between the players would be much smaller than it is in the real world. In this ideal world there would be little to choose between the skills of the players and so the vast majority wouldn't go bust as quickly, they would play more games and their deposited monies would go much further. As a consequence of this the rake (and profits) would increase dramatically and the site numbers would be far easier to maintain or increase ............ but that's in a fantasy poker site world, not the real world.
I don't suggest this happens by default, but the argument is certainly flawed.
Alan, If you think there are "anomolies" in the software, rather than make Forum Posts about them, or at the very least, in addition to them, may I suggest you report them to the Independent Regulator. It's amazing that players can make these offensive suggestions, without a shred of admissable evidence, day after day, but as soon as someone stands up to them, they go on the defensive. If you think there are anomolies, you really should take your case to the Independent Regulator. If I think a supplier, say (hypothetically) Sainsbury's, or Tesco, is diddling me, I report them, every time to the appropriate authority. I see it as my responsibility & duty to my fellow customers. I bet there have been 1,000 Posts on this Forum suggesting "anomolies" in the software. The address & a Link to the Independent Regulator is at the foot of every Forum Page. I wonder what the over/under is on how many players have actually reported these anomolies to the Regulator? I would think the line would be set at about 4-5. I'm a seller. Posted by Tikay10
In Response to Re: Downhill Spiral : You're going to have to explain that one to me! You're convinced that Sky is clean yet you don't like what you're seeing at the tables? Posted by MereNovice
my take on that sentence was that Alan thinks that the site is run honestly, however the RnG is ever so slighlty flawed compared to other sites.
All these silly conspiracy theories are easily explained by two simple things; variance and selective memory (which is something we all have). I'd say the chances of Sky having a crooked RNG is about as likely as the existence of The Loch Ness monster.
In Response to Re: Downhill Spiral : my take on that sentence was that Alan thinks that the site is run honestly, however the RnG is ever so slighlty flawed compared to other sites. Posted by scotty77
Ryan,
The RNG cannot be "slightly flawed" any more than someone can be slightly pregnant, or slightly dead.
In any event, the sample sizes being quoted are laughable - as you well know.
In Response to Re: Downhill Spiral : You're going to have to explain that one to me! You're convinced that Sky is clean yet you don't like what you're seeing at the tables? Posted by MereNovice
OK if I must.
The two separate statements were in reply to Tikay's post where he said I was suggesting that Sky, Himself, his dog, and everyone else was corrupt. My first statement answered that by saying I didn't suggest or claim that Sky etc. is corrupt. This is true because I didn't and never have.
The second statement was that I didn't like what I was seeing at the tables and I don't.
Comments
Alan,
If you think there are "anomolies" in the software, rather than make Forum Posts about them, or at the very least, in addition to them, may I suggest you report them to the Independent Regulator.
It's amazing that players can make these offensive suggestions, without a shred of admissable evidence, day after day, but as soon as someone stands up to them, they go on the defensive.
If you think there are anomolies, you really should take your case to the Independent Regulator.
If I think a supplier, say (hypothetically) Sainsbury's, or Tesco, is diddling me, I report them, every time to the appropriate authority. I see it as my responsibility & duty to my fellow customers.
I bet there have been 1,000 Posts on this Forum suggesting "anomolies" in the software. The address & a Link to the Independent Regulator is at the foot of every Forum Page.
I wonder what the over/under is on how many players have actually reported these anomolies to the Regulator? I would think the line would be set at about 4-5. I'm a seller.
'sharks' / good players, are perfectly entitled to play at whatever level they wish
You're going to have to explain that one to me!
You're convinced that Sky is clean yet you don't like what you're seeing at the tables?
Alan,
The argument is only flawed if you make the assumption that the Site is operated dishonestly. It is not.
Have you reported your suspicions to the Independent Regulator? If not, why not?
I am a winner.
Enjoy this debate, lads, because my New Years Resolution will be not to waste my time on these bizarre threads.
And please remember, if you think anything is amiss, just take your evidence to the Independent Regulator.
Have ANY of you ever done that?
The RNG cannot be "slightly flawed" any more than someone can be slightly pregnant, or slightly dead.
In any event, the sample sizes being quoted are laughable - as you well know.