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.
Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in
Sky_Poker
Member Posts: 2,715
Hi all
We just wanted to run a little poll and discussion on minumum buy-in levels on standard cash tables. Currently we have it as 10 big blinds and we often get asked to increase it to a higher amount, which we could do.
We're sure the pros and cons will be discussed on here but for now, what would you set it as?
Thanks
Sky Poker
Comments
I have voted 20bb.
Many people on here will have voted higher as the people on the forums are poker enthusists wanting a deeper stack game. However, poker enthusiasts generally dont spend money on playing poker. The poker economy is funded by gamlers who want to have fun and dont care about strategy.
I would prefer these players to buy in for a full stack, but the majority dont. They want to buy in shorter and spin it up. Therefore a low buy in for each table is required. However, 10bb is too low, there is no real skill in poker if you or your opponents have 10bb or less (Thats why I dont play tournaments).
Any site should be set up with the gambler in mind first and the reg second. For the past few years sites/networks have been chasing the regular players. Now that is changing many sites are now chaning the rewards for regular players and focusing in on attracting gamblers who spend money. As its took them a few years to realise that poker is like any other business and needs people who spend money to survive.
I am slightly concerned that Sky are starting to go down the route that many other networks are abandoning and going after regular players with this rake race. It may boost traffic in the short term but is detremntal in the long term to the site. As gamblers will get eaten alive with a reg to gambler ratio of 5 to 1 on every table. They will stop playing if they are not getting value for money from their deposit.
I would prefer if a 3d tv got sent to the guy who funded £10/£20 omaha last night rather than the person with the most points.
Well the question is being asked, no decision has been made.
However, I would not see it as "pricing out the small player".
There is, for the very skilled player, & even then only arguably, some merit to "shorting".
However, for regular poker players, playing with 10 or 20 Bigs on a Table means we cannot possibly play our best poker. The deeper our stack, the better we can play, so rather than "short" at, say, 50p - £1, it would produce far better results if we played a full BI @ lower levels, because then we are playing deeper, & thus we can play better.
"Then everyone's happy".......now that would be quite something!
40bb min is fine
Had a player playing 20 bigs last night and doubled up with a FH, reminds me of an old TV game show “Look at what you could have won”
Whatever happens can we have every table the same. It makes multi tabling much harder if one table is one type and another is different. Sky doesnt have enough liquidity to have a decent amount of tables running of all different types.
Keep it simple 20 or 30 bb min 100bb max.
Short stacks will be happy at that and am sure deeper stack players will be too.
Can Sky also look at increasing the poker points available for people who start tables. Some regs sit on 6 max tables but then sit out once a good/regular player joins and doesn't start playing until bad/random players come to the party.
The first 2 people who play at a table, and start generating rake, should get an even bigger points boost for the all the time they are at the table. Especially at times like this when 100nl is absolutely reg locked at the happy hours.
I also bet that the people who sit min stacked are only happy if others are full stacked otherwise thier tactic would be nul an void.
So in essence they want thier right to ruin the action in a game and gain an advantage.
If they are allowed to enter a game and put in the min then I want the right to reduce my balance without leaving the table.
This is one part of poker that deffo angers me.
In a nut shell, I want all tables max buy in only, And if you only have 40 bucks go play in a 40 bucks game.
If any shorts stack punters want to dissagree then you should be willing for the big stacks to drop to a % of your balance. I for one givin this option would always use it. And if the short stacks dissagree with this then they dont have a leg to stand on. cake an eat it would be the phrase.
All the pro,s who say 20-40 is ok, Please be honest and tell if you would allow someone with 20 squids to attend a home game you orginized?.. Lets not get conned by a phrase... shortstack play is part of the game.
It Shouldnt be a part of the game, Someone turns up at your home game holding 20 quid you undoubtedly show him the door.
I think you are all being too too diplomatic.
For HU, I think it should be slightly higher than 20 - I'd suggest 40. As someone else already pointed out, if your opponent only pulls up with a short stack, then even if you beat them you can still lose money because of rake. I'll personally sit out when someone pulls up with a tiny stack at a HU cash table, and let them know why I'm sat out in chat. As I can only lose money, it makes no sense for me to play these people. Their choice whether they pull up with more, or leave the table.