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

13»

Comments

  • DOHHHHHHHDOHHHHHHH Member Posts: 17,929
    edited January 2012
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in:
    lol @ dohh argueing about playing with regs when you avoid them like the plague and have been at 30nl for your life without having the balls to move up like pryce said you will always win small it's just a matter if you can be bothered to grind for it
    Posted by zing
    Not arguing fella just posted a question, got a reply, so asked another question.

    Trying to learn/understand if anything. 

    Even @ 30nl u get loads of people that fit pryce's description, and I try and outplay them all the time. It seems that in itself is a mistake as it can't be done? :s find that hard to believe like. 

    Think of me as a nl4er trying to get a sneak peek into the mind of a pro, might get answers then ;)


  • CrazyBen23CrazyBen23 Member Posts: 865
    edited January 2012
    Stanley644 is the exact reason why this needs changing, he plays every 40/50nl table with 10bbs, i for one am now logging off becuase of this genuis, sooner u change this the sooner you'll recieve my rake, good-day.
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 173,825
    edited January 2012

    Guys, quit with the flaming, please.
  • lynx3ffectlynx3ffect Member Posts: 452
    edited January 2012
    Always going to get some arguments in a thread like this...contenious subject open to debate

    Shame not more people have voted but 30bb seems to be the happy medium....what are timescales for implementation?
  • djblacke04djblacke04 Member Posts: 1,778
    edited January 2012


    here is a suggestion,yes you should have minimum buyins of 50BB but why have a maximum? 


  • belsibubbelsibub Member Posts: 2,527
    edited January 2012
    Will have to change from I.E.9 can't see vote on opening post.Don't play alot of cash but think 25bb's(1/4 of max buy-in) would be a good compromise.
  • walesboywalesboy Member Posts: 993
    edited January 2012
    I only play the small stakes where you get quite a few of the 10bb players.
    I don't mind playing them as they may double/triple up but more often than not they stay on the table but are not sure how to play with the "larger" stack or just carry on gambling.
    It is just another way of playing which you have to adapt to.
    variety is the spice of life guys
    i voted to keep it the same.

    maybe you could have some cash tables (like those where you can start with 200bb) which specifically has only a full 100bb "buy in"? the TV and other tables are highlighted differently so maybe others could be too?
  • cleansweepcleansweep Member Posts: 598
    edited January 2012

    Why change things?
    If you're good enough to play on the table, Your opponents stack should never be an issue!
    Your mindset should always be how and when you're going to take it!

    Change can be good! but the changes taking place at the minute do seem to isolate smaller bankrolled recreation players IMO.
    If those players are discouraged you'll end up playing the same faces over and over again!
    I voted for 10 bb but would always stake the maximum if I could afford it! some players can't and don't want to put in more than the minimum. please let them be!

  • zingzing Member Posts: 333
    edited January 2012
    bump

    any update on what you'll up the minimun to yet and when it'll be implemented?

    reggy shortstackers at 200 starting to tilt me
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited January 2012
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in:
    bump any update on what you'll up the minimun to yet and when it'll be implemented? reggy shortstackers at 200 starting to tilt me
    Posted by zing

    shortstackers on sky are hardly an issue, i've never seen a non losing one !
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited January 2012
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in:
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in : Not arguing fella just posted a question, got a reply, so asked another question. Trying to learn/understand if anything.  Even @ 30nl u get loads of people that fit pryce's description, and I try and outplay them all the time. It seems that in itself is a mistake as it can't be done? :s find that hard to believe like.  Think of me as a nl4er trying to get a sneak peek into the mind of a pro, might get answers then ;)
    Posted by DOHHHHHHH

    This might be the worst idea ever but check this thread doh!

  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 173,825
    edited January 2012
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in:
    bump any update on what you'll up the minimun to yet and when it'll be implemented? reggy shortstackers at 200 starting to tilt me
    Posted by zing
    Yes, the decision has been made, & the start date, both of which will be announced shortly. I am quite sure everyone will be happy. *

    * T & C's apply.
  • edited January 2012
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in:
    If you're good enough to play on the table, Your opponents stack should never be an issue!
    Posted by cleansweep
    This is so fundamentally wrong, I can't even begin to explain it. A 10bb raising vs a 50bb stack raising vs a 100bb stack raising vs a 200bb stack raising are all completely different situations that need serious considerations. 10bb stacks force short-term all-in action by constantly getting marginal hands in preflop, disrupting the play of everyone else, and also giving them the worst return possible on their gamble when the pot they win caps the rake, whereas any larger stack would beneift on amounts won after the rake caps.

    e.g. £0.50/£1, £10 stack goes all in from SB, BB calls. SB wins, pot £20, 5% rake, £1, SB is +£9 on a £10 bet. 

    With tiny stack sizes, rake eats up a chunk of any pots they win.
  • freechips1freechips1 Member Posts: 861
    edited January 2012
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in:
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in : This is so fundamentally wrong, I can't even begin to explain it. A 10bb raising vs a 50bb stack raising vs a 100bb stack raising vs a 200bb stack raising are all completely different situations that need serious considerations. 10bb stacks force short-term all-in action by constantly getting marginal hands in preflop, disrupting the play of everyone else, and also giving them the worst return possible on their gamble when the pot they win caps the rake, whereas any larger stack would beneift on amounts won after the rake caps. e.g. £0.50/£1, £10 stack goes all in from SB, BB calls. SB wins, pot £20, 5% rake, £1, SB is +£9 on a £10 bet.  With tiny stack sizes, rake eats up a chunk of any pots they win.
    Posted by CoxyLboro
    coxy how you finding nl4 with 7.5% rake and no cap?
  • edited January 2012
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in:
    In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in : coxy how you finding nl4 with 7.5% rake and no cap?
    Posted by freechips1
    37bb/100 after 3000 hands, not going too bad.

    And the cap is £1.40 according to Sky search
Sign In or Register to comment.