In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:Beaneh I dont know what your problem is, Must make yourslef feel good trying to put me down hiding behind your computer. I never even said if I was against it or not. I am not sure which I would prefer. My biggest point is that more rake is credited to recreational players than any of the regs thats all. But may make fewer but better tables.Posted by ajs4385
At least be factual, I obviously hide behind my monitors they are bigger and provide more protection than my pc tower. durrrrrrrrrr
I never even said if I was against it or not
The tight regs get a lot less rakeback as they are tight. (you're referring to yourself) the aim of breaking even and getting a decent rakeback payment at the end of the month. (this is your aim). From a personal point of view its nice having a low variance method of rakeback (RB here = freemoney). (see as I said it's your aim...)
So in actual fact you mean you gave your opinion and now it's clear you've been shown up to be selfish and not putting forth an opinion to further the website and the player pool in general just yourself. Well done. Thanks for that, about as helpful as going on tv and saying 'These idiots pay my mortgage'. WPWP
My biggest point is that more rake is credited to recreational players than any of the regs thats all
Now of course this is a brilliant point, why the pluck would a poker site want to have recreational players who regularly deposit and bring money to the site? Those detestable unhelpful capital bringing fishes. how dare they get in the games with rakeback grinder morons, that's bang out of order, why don't they go deposit elsewhere and lose their money to someone else, they get in the way of our rakeback payments.
Poker sites are an ecosystem, There is quite an important equation it goes something like deposits - withdrawals - rake = liquidity
so you think we should benefit the rakeback morons like yourself and punish those pesky depositing recreational players. erm ok you're stupid. that's counter intuitive if your goal is to continue to have a poker site.
The main problems a poker site faces are shooting itself in the foot (like the moron network similar to apple products) by offering 400 skins all trying to undercut each other by offering larger and larger slices of the rake back to it's players. this in turn canabalises the skins of it's own network and is a vicious cycle. Sky is a standalone network with none of these stupid affilliate/rakeback issues, yet you want it to go that way so it benefits you, absolutely brilliant, well done that man. How about 800% rakeback for the lols, and maybe make it so that if you fold for 100 hands preflop in a row you get a bonus?! you'd rake it in eh... Poker sites for long term liquidity need to focus on the recreational players, make their enjoyment increase and keep them coming back. You could say that by having the 'poker school' the player pool is being educated and being told to play within bankrolls and not do ridic silly roulette type plays, this is going to benefit the longevity of the poker sites recreational players. And that is pretty unusual in the poker community. It is a good thing and something that was never considered at the golden age start of poker where money was just flooding in. The poker sites themselves don't care who plays at the tables as long as the games are running hence the happy hour promos where tonnes of people have been playing more tables than usual just for the sake of it to get points. However the poker sites understand the long term model of what they do (or at least some of them do to differing degrees) and so now the worldwide poker market has contracted so much and been through so many scandals/issues these nuances that haven't mattered in the running of sites are coming under scrutiny. Sky goes through the same issues as other poker sites just a long time behind, there are other issues such as Lobby clutter, buttoning, heads up as a format, 6max table starting, intensly disgusting etqiuette, disrespecting recreational players etc. All of these require some out of the box thinking to solve and for people to understand the problems rather than either bury their head in the sand and pretend it's not a problem or just hope it will go away etc. Educating people as to the issues and the possible methods of resolution is the only way to bring about the solutions to these issues.
It is no use Sky listenening to the unimportant minority of bumhunters and forgoing making changes that benefit the recreational players required to keep the ecosystem liquid and populated. If any kind of sensible thought goes into whether to introduce this (fairer) method of rake distribution then it wont be a matter of what people think on the forums it will be a matter of how quickly can this change be implemented behind the scenes.
Recreational players sit down to play poker, to have some swings and have fun, trying to benefit those players who just sit there folding like an oragami grand master is pretty disgusting.
"The tight regs get a lot less rakeback as they are tight." This is obviously a good thing, why should they get as much rakeback proportionally as someone who plays 3x as many pots and pays alot more rake than them. Oh wait they should cos you're one of them. HI DER SELFLESS POSTING STYLE.
Oh Thanks for being so willing to start 6 max games and not sitting out hu with regs and insta sitting in when a fish sits OH WAIT YOU DO DAT DONT YOU
I support the change, however, to keep the anti-change punters happy I think you should retain one day a week of the current rake method (say call it nitty naturday), and also have an hour a day on every other day where the old rake method is used (say, nitty nine o'clock). This should be fairly simple for the programmers I think and easy to understand for everyone.
This was a topic that was meant to come up when myself and simuk were on the show on Tuesday 13th but it got missed out due to other topics being talked about more and we/sky just forgot I guess.
If a player was to play 0% of hands then on the current system they would still get an equal amount of points as the other players at the table who are actually using more than one button!!
Because of this I vote for contributed rake as it seems to me to be the fairest method of distributing points/rakeback.
Also when ajs mentioned a low variance method of rakeback, I don't think it would make much difference to your month on month rakeback variance.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points: At least be factual, I obviously hide behind my monitors they are bigger and provide more protection than my pc tower. durrrrrrrrrr I never even said if I was against it or not The tight regs get a lot less rakeback as they are tight. (you're referring to yourself) the aim of breaking even and getting a decent rakeback payment at the end of the month. (this is your aim). From a personal point of view its nice having a low variance method of rakeback (RB here = freemoney). (see as I said it's your aim...) So in actual fact you mean you gave your opinion and now it's clear you've been shown up to be selfish and not putting forth an opinion to further the website and the player pool in general just yourself. Well done. Thanks for that, about as helpful as going on tv and saying 'These idiots pay my mortgage'. WPWP My biggest point is that more rake is credited to recreational players than any of the regs thats all Now of course this is a brilliant point, why the pluck would a poker site want to have recreational players who regularly deposit and bring money to the site? Those detestable unhelpful capital bringing fishes. how dare they get in the games with rakeback grinder morons, that's bang out of order, why don't they go deposit elsewhere and lose their money to someone else, they get in the way of our rakeback payments. Poker sites are an ecosystem, There is quite an important equation it goes something like deposits - withdrawals - rake = liquidity so you think we should benefit the rakeback morons like yourself and punish those pesky depositing recreational players. erm ok you're stupid. that's counter intuitive if your goal is to continue to have a poker site. The main problems a poker site faces are shooting itself in the foot (like the moron network similar to apple products) by offering 400 skins all trying to undercut each other by offering larger and larger slices of the rake back to it's players. this in turn canabalises the skins of it's own network and is a vicious cycle. Sky is a standalone network with none of these stupid affilliate/rakeback issues, yet you want it to go that way so it benefits you, absolutely brilliant, well done that man. How about 800% rakeback for the lols, and maybe make it so that if you fold for 100 hands preflop in a row you get a bonus?! you'd rake it in eh... Poker sites for long term liquidity need to focus on the recreational players, make their enjoyment increase and keep them coming back. You could say that by having the 'poker school' the player pool is being educated and being told to play within bankrolls and not do ridic silly roulette type plays, this is going to benefit the longevity of the poker sites recreational players. And that is pretty unusual in the poker community. It is a good thing and something that was never considered at the golden age start of poker where money was just flooding in. The poker sites themselves don't care who plays at the tables as long as the games are running hence the happy hour promos where tonnes of people have been playing more tables than usual just for the sake of it to get points. However the poker sites understand the long term model of what they do (or at least some of them do to differing degrees) and so now the worldwide poker market has contracted so much and been through so many scandals/issues these nuances that haven't mattered in the running of sites are coming under scrutiny. Sky goes through the same issues as other poker sites just a long time behind, there are other issues such as Lobby clutter, buttoning, heads up as a format, 6max table starting, intensly disgusting etqiuette, disrespecting recreational players etc. All of these require some out of the box thinking to solve and for people to understand the problems rather than either bury their head in the sand and pretend it's not a problem or just hope it will go away etc. Educating people as to the issues and the possible methods of resolution is the only way to bring about the solutions to these issues. It is no use Sky listenening to the unimportant minority of bumhunters and forgoing making changes that benefit the recreational players required to keep the ecosystem liquid and populated. If any kind of sensible thought goes into whether to introduce this (fairer) method of rake distribution then it wont be a matter of what people think on the forums it will be a matter of how quickly can this change be implemented behind the scenes. Recreational players sit down to play poker, to have some swings and have fun, trying to benefit those players who just sit there folding like an oragami grand master is pretty disgusting. "The tight regs get a lot less rakeback as they are tight." This is obviously a good thing, why should they get as much rakeback proportionally as someone who plays 3x as many pots and pays alot more rake than them. Oh wait they should cos you're one of them. HI DER SELFLESS POSTING STYLE. Oh Thanks for being so willing to start 6 max games and not sitting out hu with regs and insta sitting in when a fish sits OH WAIT YOU DO DAT DONT YOU D U C WAT I DUN DER? Posted by beaneh
Stop sitting on the fence Beaneh and say it like it is ffs.
Absolutely classic post and if the current system stays the suits aint listening.
I support the change, however, to keep the anti-change punters happy I think you should retain one day a week of the current rake method (say call it nitty naturday), and also have an hour a day on every other day where the old rake method is used (say, nitty nine o'clock). This should be fairly simple for the programmers I think and easy to understand for everyone. SoLack SoLutions Ltd Posted by SoLack
Designing a program where an entire rake system changes across hundreds of tables at a set time would be pretty difficult.
While his tone is as always unique, Beaneh has put forward a fantastic argument and made frankly an excellent post when you overlook the more direct references to AJS.
Just one point I want to pick up on from AJS's first post, you said that the one tabling recreational player won't make any rakeback. I disagree, SkyPoker have been hammering C4P on the windows in the lobby, the yellow banner we all love so much, the home page and on the TV channel. This is designed for the recreational player so they opt in and are aware of it, they're not aimed at regs. 500 points in a month isn't a big amount even for a one tabling occasional player and C4P is a heck of a lot easier to sort out than some other rakeback systems I've seen. Now how do you think the recreational player is going to feel when he gets a few quid back into his account? I'd say happy. I'd say more likely to keep playing and keep depositing on this site rather than wander off. Yes they are not putting in a ton of hours, but we're talking about plenty of recreational one tablers. Hopefully more and more.
Personally I want the change, SkyPoker have always tried to focus in on the recreational player and that is about as important thing as a poker site can do.
This week on the shows I have been called super laggy and a rock. If we assume the later is correct then I really am fine taking a cut in rakeback if that money is going to the recreational players and therefore helps the liquidity and longevity of the site. I struggle to see how this is not good business sense and good for all of the regs (granite to elastic) in the long term.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : Designing a program where an entire rake system changes across hundreds of tables at a set time would be pretty difficult. Posted by CoxyLboro
Doesn't it knid of, almost, sort of do that already?
1) The point throughout this thread I am trying to make is that if you are a nit, tag or lag. You are going to be worse off if your rakeback deal goes from e.g. 30% dealt to 30% weighted contributed. Obviously if the site goes from 30% dealt to 50% weighted contributed then that is a different story.
2) I am not the loosest of regs but with a vpip of 31% am hardly the tightest either.
3) Beaneh Why so personal, I dont get it. I dont know you, I have never met you, I have never chatted to you. The only memorable game I have had against you is when I beat you heads up in the tsp play off. For all I know you could be a 40 year old housewife with three kids or a 20something skinny loud mouth who closest he gets to pie is the apple variety. I just dont get why you made it so personal?
1) The point throughout this thread I am trying to make is that if you are a nit, tag or lag. You are going to be worse off if your rakeback deal goes from e.g. 30% dealt to 30% weighted contributed. Obviously if the site goes from 30% dealt to 50% weighted contributed then that is a different story. 2) I am not the loosest of regs but with a vpip of 31% am hardly the tightest either. 3) Beaneh Why so personal, I dont get it. I dont know you, I have never met you, I have never chatted to you. The only memorable game I have had against you is when I beat you heads up in the tsp play off. For all I know you could be a 40 year old housewife with three kids or a 20something skinny loud mouth who closest he gets to pie is the apple variety. I just dont get why you made it so personal? Posted by ajs4385
How is everyone worse off? I fail to understand this. From what I can see your original post its basically conjecture.
This quote for example is just not true... "The loose regs will get a bit less, although play a lot of pots they mainly take them down pre and therefore no rake is paid."
Anyone can get a VPIP of 30%+ by minraising every button, but I bet players like LOL_Raise etc will see more than twice as many turn and rivers as the tighter players, hence the rake is much greater overall. There is literally no possible scenario where the looser players will not get more rakeback. Is that fair? Yes, they make the games interesting, fun for the recreational players and rake more in the first place.
From the articles I have read on the internet when sites have gone from dealt to weighted. All regs including looser ones have been getting less rakeback as the rakes gets credited to the recreational players as they are the ones that are constantly seeing flops because they are the ones that are constantly pressing the call button. Where as regs generally press the raise button and most pots are taken down pre.
I agree it is fairer that looser regs get more than tighter regs, as I put in my first line of my first post.
Let me get things clear, I am all for it as long as the total amount paid out does not decrease. But points system would have to be totally changed to make that happen.
Say they kept it the same and only gave the same points out to people who saw the flop in the raked hand instead of points for being dealt cards. All types of regs would lose out big time. Cant believe people cant see this.
From the articles I have read on the internet when sites have gone from dealt to weighted. All regs including looser ones have been getting less rakeback as the rakes gets credited to the recreational players as they are the ones that are constantly seeing flops because they are the ones that are constantly pressing the call button. Where as regs generally press the raise button and most pots are taken down pre. I agree it is fairer that looser regs get more than tighter regs, as I put in my first line of my first post. Posted by ajs4385
Without the article source it's hard for me to comment on what it says, but even, in the unlikely event is it true IMO, I would still rather the recreational callers get the money than the tight regulars.
Whilst on the subject, I would like some changes to help promote the starting of games. Why not 1.5x C$Ps for the players starting the table HU?
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : Without the article source it's hard for me to comment on what it says, but even, in the unlikely event is it true IMO, I would still rather the recreational callers get the money than the tight regulars. Whilst on the subject, I would like some changes to help promote the starting of games. Why not 1.5x C$Ps for the players starting the table HU? Posted by simuk
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : Without the article source it's hard for me to comment on what it says, but even, in the unlikely event is it true IMO, I would still rather the recreational callers get the money than the tight regulars. Whilst on the subject, I would like some changes to help promote the starting of games. Why not 1.5x C$Ps for the players starting the table HU? Posted by simuk
I'd be happy for recreational players to get a proportionally larger share of the rakeback than any regs, loose or tight. They are the only way to sustain liquidity of a poker site. Any way to keep recreational players who regularly deposit with the site as well as attracting more recreational players can only be good for both the site and the regs in the longterm.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : Watch this space! Great minds, great minds! Posted by Sky_Poker
This would be fantastic. Anything that discourages the disgusting behaviour of sitting at a new table...then sitting out when a reg joins...then snap sitting back in when a random/poor player sits would be excellent and is needed to keep the liquidity of the site going.
Comments
At least be factual, I obviously hide behind my monitors they are bigger and provide more protection than my pc tower. durrrrrrrrrr
I never even said if I was against it or not
The tight regs get a lot less rakeback as they are tight. (you're referring to yourself)
the aim of breaking even and getting a decent rakeback payment at the end of the month. (this is your aim).
From a personal point of view its nice having a low variance method of rakeback (RB here = freemoney). (see as I said it's your aim...)
So in actual fact you mean you gave your opinion and now it's clear you've been shown up to be selfish and not putting forth an opinion to further the website and the player pool in general just yourself. Well done. Thanks for that, about as helpful as going on tv and saying 'These idiots pay my mortgage'. WPWP
My biggest point is that more rake is credited to recreational players than any of the regs thats all
Now of course this is a brilliant point, why the pluck would a poker site want to have recreational players who regularly deposit and bring money to the site? Those detestable unhelpful capital bringing fishes. how dare they get in the games with rakeback grinder morons, that's bang out of order, why don't they go deposit elsewhere and lose their money to someone else, they get in the way of our rakeback payments.
Poker sites are an ecosystem,
There is quite an important equation it goes something like
deposits - withdrawals - rake = liquidity
so you think we should benefit the rakeback morons like yourself and punish those pesky depositing recreational players. erm ok you're stupid. that's counter intuitive if your goal is to continue to have a poker site.
The main problems a poker site faces are shooting itself in the foot (like the moron network similar to apple products) by offering 400 skins all trying to undercut each other by offering larger and larger slices of the rake back to it's players. this in turn canabalises the skins of it's own network and is a vicious cycle. Sky is a standalone network with none of these stupid affilliate/rakeback issues, yet you want it to go that way so it benefits you, absolutely brilliant, well done that man. How about 800% rakeback for the lols, and maybe make it so that if you fold for 100 hands preflop in a row you get a bonus?! you'd rake it in eh...
Poker sites for long term liquidity need to focus on the recreational players, make their enjoyment increase and keep them coming back. You could say that by having the 'poker school' the player pool is being educated and being told to play within bankrolls and not do ridic silly roulette type plays, this is going to benefit the longevity of the poker sites recreational players. And that is pretty unusual in the poker community. It is a good thing and something that was never considered at the golden age start of poker where money was just flooding in.
The poker sites themselves don't care who plays at the tables as long as the games are running hence the happy hour promos where tonnes of people have been playing more tables than usual just for the sake of it to get points. However the poker sites understand the long term model of what they do (or at least some of them do to differing degrees) and so now the worldwide poker market has contracted so much and been through so many scandals/issues these nuances that haven't mattered in the running of sites are coming under scrutiny.
Sky goes through the same issues as other poker sites just a long time behind, there are other issues such as Lobby clutter, buttoning, heads up as a format, 6max table starting, intensly disgusting etqiuette, disrespecting recreational players etc. All of these require some out of the box thinking to solve and for people to understand the problems rather than either bury their head in the sand and pretend it's not a problem or just hope it will go away etc. Educating people as to the issues and the possible methods of resolution is the only way to bring about the solutions to these issues.
It is no use Sky listenening to the unimportant minority of bumhunters and forgoing making changes that benefit the recreational players required to keep the ecosystem liquid and populated. If any kind of sensible thought goes into whether to introduce this (fairer) method of rake distribution then it wont be a matter of what people think on the forums it will be a matter of how quickly can this change be implemented behind the scenes.
Recreational players sit down to play poker, to have some swings and have fun, trying to benefit those players who just sit there folding like an oragami grand master is pretty disgusting.
"The tight regs get a lot less rakeback as they are tight."
This is obviously a good thing, why should they get as much rakeback proportionally as someone who plays 3x as many pots and pays alot more rake than them.
Oh wait they should cos you're one of them. HI DER SELFLESS POSTING STYLE.
Oh Thanks for being so willing to start 6 max games and not sitting out hu with regs and insta sitting in when a fish sits OH WAIT YOU DO DAT DONT YOU
D U C WAT I DUN DER?
SoLack SoLutions Ltd
If a player was to play 0% of hands then on the current system they would still get an equal amount of points as the other players at the table who are actually using more than one button!!
Because of this I vote for contributed rake as it seems to me to be the fairest method of distributing points/rakeback.
Also when ajs mentioned a low variance method of rakeback, I don't think it would make much difference to your month on month rakeback variance.
How can it be fair that all players get an equal share if they dont all contribute an equal amount.
ANIMAL FARM FTW.
Absolutely classic post and if the current system stays the suits aint listening.
Just one point I want to pick up on from AJS's first post, you said that the one tabling recreational player won't make any rakeback. I disagree, SkyPoker have been hammering C4P on the windows in the lobby, the yellow banner we all love so much, the home page and on the TV channel. This is designed for the recreational player so they opt in and are aware of it, they're not aimed at regs. 500 points in a month isn't a big amount even for a one tabling occasional player and C4P is a heck of a lot easier to sort out than some other rakeback systems I've seen. Now how do you think the recreational player is going to feel when he gets a few quid back into his account? I'd say happy. I'd say more likely to keep playing and keep depositing on this site rather than wander off. Yes they are not putting in a ton of hours, but we're talking about plenty of recreational one tablers. Hopefully more and more.
Personally I want the change, SkyPoker have always tried to focus in on the recreational player and that is about as important thing as a poker site can do.
This week on the shows I have been called super laggy and a rock. If we assume the later is correct then I really am fine taking a cut in rakeback if that money is going to the recreational players and therefore helps the liquidity and longevity of the site. I struggle to see how this is not good business sense and good for all of the regs (granite to elastic) in the long term.
People shouldnt be able to play an average 8 hands every 100 and be able to make £1k+ a month in rakeback
Congrats to Solack Solutions Ltd for whooshing at least two readers - incredible bluffaments!
2) I am not the loosest of regs but with a vpip of 31% am hardly the tightest either.
3) Beaneh Why so personal, I dont get it. I dont know you, I have never met you, I have never chatted to you. The only memorable game I have had against you is when I beat you heads up in the tsp play off. For all I know you could be a 40 year old housewife with three kids or a 20something skinny loud mouth who closest he gets to pie is the apple variety. I just dont get why you made it so personal?
From the articles I have read on the internet when sites have gone from dealt to weighted. All regs including looser ones have been getting less rakeback as the rakes gets credited to the recreational players as they are the ones that are constantly seeing flops because they are the ones that are constantly pressing the call button. Where as regs generally press the raise button and most pots are taken down pre.
I agree it is fairer that looser regs get more than tighter regs, as I put in my first line of my first post.
Say they kept it the same and only gave the same points out to people who saw the flop in the raked hand instead of points for being dealt cards. All types of regs would lose out big time. Cant believe people cant see this.
Great minds, great minds!