the only way to stop that is stars' approach by warning people then temp banning them for doing it but sky won't do that so that issue will never go away.
Couldnt giving extra points to starting a table mean that regs will stop going on waiting lists and start 9 new tables?(some regs like points). could the lobby end up with 100 tables all at 1/6 seated?
As someone who does not play cash seriously, my opinion on this is irrelevant, even if I had an opinion !
But the thread is still interesting.
One site that I play a fair bit of hilo cash on claims that the points awarded on a hand are adjusted accorded to the "experience" of the opponent. No real idea of how this works, but I would guess it would have to depend on points already earned by the other players involved in the hand.
So it would encourage recreational players to take a shot at the regs and perhaps be an incentive for a reg to play another reg if he felt he had a small edge.
But it would obviously lessen the points earned when you are lucky enough to be facing a less experienced opponent.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : As we didn't get to talk about it on the show Tikay, any chance of a Beaneh phone in tonight to calmly explain his rationale? It would be record breaking viewing figures imo...
Posted by simuk
You'll be alreeet pet.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
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
1) you are utterly incorrect. It affects people different amounts depending on their play style. Nits will get less for the same number of hands with weighted vs dealt, lags will get more. Quite simple really.
2) My abject disgust is not related to your appallingly nitty moronic play style it's related to the disgusting etiquette and the lack of respect you show to Sky/the fish. Giving opinions which are tailored to benefit you specifically is really helpful.
3) My points are based on giving the best possible advice long term for the poker site not for Mr AJS. We may never have met but we've played many many times (sure are 31%...), remember all those SITOUT WAIT FOR FISH TO SIT MOMENTS, they were so special. RAISE FOLD RAISE FOLD RAISE FOLD LOLOLOLOL. And awesome work complaning about personal references then trying to get a little dig in about TSP. WP, I seem to remember you skilled me like a true expert, lots of reetard all ins, do wins rinse repeat. Now you remind us though, remind us how much you benefited the Sky community, or did you just say "Tournaments are stupid I don't want to play live I only played this for the sake of it"... Oh no wait you also said 'these idiots pay my mortgage' when you went on the Sky poker channel, well done that was very on message of you.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
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
So the people who pay the most rake are getting the most rakeback. NO THAT'S A DISGRACE HOW COULD THEY looool. Well done MR SELFISH. Keep calm, carry on and be a selfish expert. Looser ones do not get less RB you're just repeating incorrect nonsense. Feel free to check the first line of your first post because obviously you've forgotten what you wrote.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
Couldnt giving extra points to starting a table mean that regs will stop going on waiting lists and start 9 new tables?(some regs like points). could the lobby end up with 100 tables all at 1/6 seated?
Posted by freechips1
IT would definitely be good to award extra points for shorthanded play.
The issue with games starting (which has been highlighted) by the recent addition of Happy hours (and also by the high volumes people were putting in in January).
During January if there were 20 nl100 games running, those games had 4-5 names that will hvae been on 75% of those tables, so there were lots of 6 max tables with the same 4 regs and two seats filled by 'randoms' or at least people who just don't play as regularly and not on the same scale. There are then issues surrounding how games are started, problems include
People sitting at the table then sitting out until 'a mark' sits (not only do the games not get running but it also is exceedingly insulting to the 'random mark'). You end up with multiple 2/6 6 max tables, both of those players are sitting out waiting for someone less competent to sit and the second they sit these players sit in. Regs who instantly move to take position when a new player sits down and especially when the reg moves to get position on a fish again who has just moved away from him. Similarly having regs sitting at a new table can easily put off recreational players, let alone if the regs are sat out until the fish pulls his money up, the regs hardly lose much expectation from playing heads up for a small sample and it would start games so much quicker and more effectively. During the happy hours you even have games which have full waiting lists which is ridiculous and stems from people just wanting to play with specific regs/recreational players on that table.
These problems have shone to the fore all over the poker community with relation to heads up and the way the heads up lobbies look. So many morans sit waiting for a special person to gift them a years wages whilst not being prepared to play anyone who even acts like they can read at more than 8 words a minute. There just ends up being 10-20 tables of people waiting for heads up action aka GIFTS whilst refusing to play anyone else who sits and doesn't auto buyin short or open limp. The lobby ends up having the same people sitting at 4-5 tables of differing limits, a recreationaly player opening up the heads up lobby just gets faced with a list of 20-30 people duplicated throughout. Using king of the hill, refusing to respawn more tables etc is a way of dealing with this and is something that has to be dealt with.
Beaneh I never said anything like that on sky poker tv. You just making up lies now. Also I do apologise for going all in when we playing heads up.
There has been mentioned about starting tables. Most regs dont put any effort into starting tables every time I am on I try to get tables going. I have done this for years. I put more effort in than most regs. It usually me, sam or remimartin. One of us sits the other sits out when table starts to fill we start playing. (I dont mix hu and 6 max) This has worked for years vast majority of 200nl tables are started this way cos majority cant be bothered. I dont expect any thanks for it but criticism come on.
Look it might sound like we are ganging up on AJS here, but I vividly remember you saying "this is the type of player that pays my mortgage" about a "fish", when on the show...
I think we should expand the debate a little now, frankly it's getting far too narrow and turning into a back and forth between two people. This is a massively important debate for everyone on Sky Poker regarding a fundamental change.
My opinion is still the same, I would like the change and it's the best business decision for the site to make that change. It's not the best decision for all of the regs in the short term but it is the best way to ensure liquidity in the long term, which is far more important in my opinion.
I think we should expand the debate a little now, frankly it's getting far too narrow and turning into a back and forth between two people. This is a massively important debate for everyone on Sky Poker regarding a fundamental change. My opinion is still the same, I would like the change and it's the best business decision for the site to make that change. It's not the best decision for all of the regs in the short term but it is the best way to ensure liquidity in the long term, which is far more important in my opinion. Posted by TommyD
Nh wp.
FWIW, my opinion was originally that I'd never seen any complaints about the current C4P system on here (maybe I wasn't looking hard enough?), so it didn't need changing. Having read posts from some of the higher stakes regs on here though, I'm much more in favour of a system which would give more C4P to the players who contribute most to the pot.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : Nh wp. FWIW, my opinion was originally that I'd never seen any complaints about the current C4P system on here (maybe I wasn't looking hard enough?), so it didn't need changing. Having read posts from some of the higher stakes regs on here though, I'm much more in favour of a system which would give more C4P to the players who contribute most to the pot. tl;dr version - Changed my mind. Posted by EvilPingu
For smiplicity lets assume the table has 5 players and gives out 500 points per hour. There is one recreational player, 2 tight regs and 2 loose regs.
Current system each player gets 100 points. Sky pay out each reg 5.6p *100 for this hours play. That is £22.40 in total paid out for the table. The recreational player gets nothing as they dont play enough to earn c4p.
New system. Still 500 points paid out. Tight regs get 50 points, loose regs get 75 points. Recreationsal player gets 250 points. Sky pays out to tight regs 50 points at 3.4p (monthly total gone down now) £1.70. Loose regs get 75 points at 4.4p £3.30. Recreational player gets nothing as doesnt play enough to get c4p. So sky have paid out a total of £10 for the hours play.
So as you see, the recreational player is unaffected, both types of regs are worse off and sky are giving less than half per table. However, sky may be worse off as regs will play less. The only upside to this is the tables may become softer and win rates may go up.
I should have given this illustration at first I just assumed people would be able to see this.
Maybe sky can give an indication of % participation in C4P in the total player population, to help inform our discussion.
It seems a loose assumption that a recreational player at any significant level will earn no C4P, especially if the system was changed to contrib basis
Illustration of why everyone is worse off For smiplicity lets assume the table has 5 players and gives out 500 points per hour. There is one recreational player, 2 tight regs and 2 loose regs. Current system each player gets 100 points. Sky pay out each reg 5.6p *100 for this hours play. That is £22.40 in total paid out for the table. The recreational player gets nothing as they dont play enough to earn c4p. New system. Still 500 points paid out. Tight regs get 50 points, loose regs get 75 points. Recreationsal player gets 250 points. Sky pays out to tight regs 50 points at 3.4p (monthly total gone down now) £1.70. Loose regs get 75 points at 4.4p £3.30. Recreational player gets nothing as doesnt play enough to get c4p. So sky have paid out a total of £10 for the hours play. So as you see, the recreational player is unaffected, both types of regs are worse off and sky are giving less than half per table. However, sky may be worse off as regs will play less. The only upside to this is the tables may become softer and win rates may go up. I should have given this illustration at first I just assumed people would be able to see this. Posted by ajs4385
Correct me if i am wrong here AJ, are you assuming that this reg who picks up 250 pts in 1 session is not going to earn another 250 pts throughout the whole of the month?
Surely the priority should be to make the games better?
A vvvvvv small percentage of players make more than 10k points per month, I think the priority freeroll gets about 60 runners a month?
Thats prob less than 0.01% of cash players?
Most of us don't really care about or play poker for rakeback, it's nice but we'd much rather have better games.
I'd prefer no rakeback at all!
I make maybe 3 buy ins a month in rakeback when playing cash. If the tables were easier as a result of an improved rakeback system I could probably make that much extra per session.
Illustration of why everyone is worse off For smiplicity lets assume the table has 5 players and gives out 500 points per hour. There is one recreational player, 2 tight regs and 2 loose regs. Current system each player gets 100 points. Sky pay out each reg 5.6p *100 for this hours play. That is £22.40 in total paid out for the table. The recreational player gets nothing as they dont play enough to earn c4p. New system. Still 500 points paid out. Tight regs get 50 points, loose regs get 75 points. Recreationsal player gets 250 points. Sky pays out to tight regs 50 points at 3.4p (monthly total gone down now) £1.70. Loose regs get 75 points at 4.4p £3.30. Recreational player gets nothing as doesnt play enough to get c4p. So sky have paid out a total of £10 for the hours play. So as you see, the recreational player is unaffected, both types of regs are worse off and sky are giving less than half per table. However, sky may be worse off as regs will play less. The only upside to this is the tables may become softer and win rates may go up. I should have given this illustration at first I just assumed people would be able to see this. Posted by ajs4385
maybe those numbers are true if the rec player is limp calling 100% of hands, but they dont. most rec. players probbly play 10-20% more hands than they 'should'
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : 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. Posted by scotty77
What would help to stop it would be less of the site's "biggest name" relentlessly doing it and then condoning it on the live TV show.
Illustration of why everyone is worse off For smiplicity lets assume the table has 5 players and gives out 500 points per hour. There is one recreational player, 2 tight regs and 2 loose regs.
Current system each player gets 100 points. Sky pay out each reg 5.6p *100 for this hours play. That is £22.40 in total paid out for the table.
The recreational player gets nothing as they dont play enough to earn c4p.
New system. Still 500 points paid out. Tight regs get 50 points, loose regs get 75 points. Recreationsal player gets 250 points. Sky pays out to tight regs 50 points at 3.4p (monthly total gone down now) £1.70. Loose regs get 75 points at 4.4p £3.30. Recreational player gets nothing as doesnt play enough to get c4p. So sky have paid out a total of £10 for the hours play.
So as you see, the recreational player is unaffected, both types of regs are worse off and sky are giving less than half per table. However, sky may be worse off as regs will play less. The only upside to this is the tables may become softer and win rates may go up. I should have given this illustration at first I just assumed people would be able to see this. Posted by ajs4385
I'm hardly C4P worthy to comment on this so might be talking out of my proverbial but Sky Poker previsouly posted:
Just to be clear, if (and is an 'if') we did the alternative system, our intention would not be to reduce how much cash for points we pay out, just share it out differently. Posted by Sky_Poker
So until they state how the C4P would be allocated isn't it impossible to judge whether it's better or worse?
A simple example using your above figures, if there is a weighting of 2.24x given to C4P payout then the total paid out would be £22.40 as before.
machka they pay out the same amount of points but will payout less cash 4 points. Using AJS example (if it is correct) if a 100/200nl reg makes 30k points @ priority +3 then he gets 5.6p per point. A random who plays 4x a month would norm get 100 x 4 points, using the example he now gets 1000 points only valued at 1p each.
At the min I am playing nl10 and with the rake @7.5% i would prob be better of under the new system.
Starting new table, i don't mind starting tables. At nl10 if i log on at 10am i norm see 2/3 tables running so will open a few and they fill real quick, norm have 6/7 running within 30 mins. I would like to be rewarded for this in some way. 2x points HU, 1.5x points 3 handed? will this make the 3rd reg sit? Once i have 6 open i don't like opening any more as i don't like playing HU and 6 ring at the same time, so i sort of understand players who play 12 tables but don't want to play HU to get more games running.
Comments
the only way to stop that is stars' approach by warning people then temp banning them for doing it but sky won't do that so that issue will never go away.
But the thread is still interesting.
One site that I play a fair bit of hilo cash on claims that the points awarded on a hand are adjusted accorded to the "experience" of the opponent. No real idea of how this works, but I would guess it would have to depend on points already earned by the other players involved in the hand.
So it would encourage recreational players to take a shot at the regs and perhaps be an incentive for a reg to play another reg if he felt he had a small edge.
But it would obviously lessen the points earned when you are lucky enough to be facing a less experienced opponent.
There has been mentioned about starting tables. Most regs dont put any effort into starting tables every time I am on I try to get tables going. I have done this for years. I put more effort in than most regs. It usually me, sam or remimartin. One of us sits the other sits out when table starts to fill we start playing. (I dont mix hu and 6 max) This has worked for years vast majority of 200nl tables are started this way cos majority cant be bothered. I dont expect any thanks for it but criticism come on.
I think we should expand the debate a little now, frankly it's getting far too narrow and turning into a back and forth between two people. This is a massively important debate for everyone on Sky Poker regarding a fundamental change.
My opinion is still the same, I would like the change and it's the best business decision for the site to make that change. It's not the best decision for all of the regs in the short term but it is the best way to ensure liquidity in the long term, which is far more important in my opinion.
FWIW, my opinion was originally that I'd never seen any complaints about the current C4P system on here (maybe I wasn't looking hard enough?), so it didn't need changing. Having read posts from some of the higher stakes regs on here though, I'm much more in favour of a system which would give more C4P to the players who contribute most to the pot.
tl;dr version - Changed my mind.
For smiplicity lets assume the table has 5 players and gives out 500 points per hour. There is one recreational player, 2 tight regs and 2 loose regs.
Current system each player gets 100 points. Sky pay out each reg 5.6p *100 for this hours play. That is £22.40 in total paid out for the table. The recreational player gets nothing as they dont play enough to earn c4p.
New system. Still 500 points paid out. Tight regs get 50 points, loose regs get 75 points. Recreationsal player gets 250 points. Sky pays out to tight regs 50 points at 3.4p (monthly total gone down now) £1.70. Loose regs get 75 points at 4.4p £3.30. Recreational player gets nothing as doesnt play enough to get c4p. So sky have paid out a total of £10 for the hours play.
So as you see, the recreational player is unaffected, both types of regs are worse off and sky are giving less than half per table. However, sky may be worse off as regs will play less. The only upside to this is the tables may become softer and win rates may go up.
I should have given this illustration at first I just assumed people would be able to see this.
most rec. players probbly play 10-20% more hands than they 'should'
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points: So until they state how the C4P would be allocated isn't it impossible to judge whether it's better or worse?
A simple example using your above figures, if there is a weighting of 2.24x given to C4P payout then the total paid out would be £22.40 as before.
Using AJS example (if it is correct) if a 100/200nl reg makes 30k points @ priority +3 then he gets 5.6p per point. A random who plays 4x a month would norm get 100 x 4 points, using the example he now gets 1000 points only valued at 1p each.
At the min I am playing nl10 and with the rake @7.5% i would prob be better of under the new system.
Starting new table, i don't mind starting tables. At nl10 if i log on at 10am i norm see 2/3 tables running so will open a few and they fill real quick, norm have 6/7 running within 30 mins. I would like to be rewarded for this in some way. 2x points HU, 1.5x points 3 handed? will this make the 3rd reg sit?
Once i have 6 open i don't like opening any more as i don't like playing HU and 6 ring at the same time, so i sort of understand players who play 12 tables but don't want to play HU to get more games running.