Indeed. The point he was making was that giving 100 poker points to say Lol_Raise costs sky more than giving 100 points to me.
That is true but I still don't think it's a particularly valid point. I know this will probably make me slightly worse off (and I basically ignore my C4P anyway as it's so little) but I've definitely been swayed by some of the clearly well thought out responses on here, and ultimately anything that improves the site/brings more traffic and 'fresh blood' to the site HAS to be a good thing and is clearly far more important than regs (loose or tight) getting C4P.
Hi everyone, this is my first post. A little about myself, i'm a rec player that has been playing poker online since early 2004, never left the micro stakes, for some reason i just love it down there but enough of that. I would like to weigh in with my opinion, the discussion of rake is brought up quite a bit with poker sites changing the way it is divided up. Pokerstars has changed to a weighted rake system and rightly so with the rakeback pros 24 tabling and clogging up the system by timing out excessively, its tough to play cash for fun if you have to wait on 7 people at the table to each cycle through 24 tables before you get to act, then repeated for the flop, turn and river. Sky poker is a different story, its hasnt got a big enough player base and the software isnt quite good enough to allow rakeback pros to kill the games. I've only been here a day and sky poker reminds me of FullTilt poker back at the beginning, okay this is turning into a bit of a ramble so i'll get straight to the point, sky poker is better off keeping the rake system the way they have it now because it gives everyone a fair shake regardless of playing style, to change the system will discourage alot of your player base as they will have to change their playing style in order to get the same as everyone else, poker is based alot on personality, i know some people that wouldnt raise on the button with J9s even if you held a gun to their head so saying punish the nits is the wrong attitude to take with a site this small. I should remain the same until the site grows to at least 50k people online at peak times.
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. Posted by freechips1
thats a great post. table starts should be awarded for their efforts, starting tables is a small sites life blood and the players should be awarded for excepting the higher varience.
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. Posted by ajs4385
1. can we stop this nonsense that rec = non-regular, we rec players can be very regular
2. It is only recently I discovered that the sky system wasn't weighted - my natural assumption was that rakeback was linked to rake paid - and I cannot think why that should not be the case
So as a reg rec / rec reg I say the change makes sense, regardless of whether I will personally benefit
i think it should be like this u pay x amount of rake to get x amount of points. this would be a fairer system
emample tourney u pay £11 entry £1 is the rake u get 10 points 4 this i think. cash should be the same u pay a total £1 rake get 10 points. but ive played hu cash table say we both start with £4 no reloads and i stack him/her after 10-20mins and cause of the rake taking from pots throughout the session i end up with say £6. so £2 taken in rake and u only receive 2-3 points max. thats y i think it would be fairer if i was like above any 1 else agree
Personally im not a fan change a lot of the table dynamics especially when it gets to say 11PM last day of month, althought i guess it brings all the 24 tabling nits out of there closets.
i like the system as it is, this seems a bit too strange if your trying to work out how much u need to play for priority club etc
i wont be able to give my opinion untill iev seen both though, dont think anyone can. could trial it for a month or two?
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. Posted by freechips1
But isn't that exactly what Sky Poker said they weren't doing previously?
Hi ajs Thanks for taking time to write your thoughts, we appreciate it. We don’t want to take sides on this as we genuinely have an open view and really do want to hear both sides of the debate, which is why we started the thread. However, just one thing... ...when you say " they will be paying less rakeback every month ". 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. Thanks again. Sky Poker Posted by Sky_Poker
So in a purely hypothetical and simple example, with nice round numbers to make it easier- lets say in a hand six people are dealt in:
- At the moment, for example, they'd get 10points each (60points in total)
- In the alternative way (forgetting the blinds to keep it simpler!) in a £40 pot - Players 1 & 2 contribute zero = get no points - Player 3 contributed £4 = gets 6 points - Player 4 contributes £8 = gets 12 points - Players 5 & 6 contribute £14 each and get 21 points each
Those who contribute more, get more (and vice versa)
What do people think about this?
Lets use player 5 and 6 as example. Player 5 is a pro who makes Priority +3 every month his/her 21 points are worth 5.6p per point. Player 6 is Joe he plays 4/5 times a month, his 21 points are only worth 1p each.
Although sky have stated it is not their intention to reduce the amount they pay out, I think it will as a rec playing a few times a month will get more points that are worth less money and a pro player will get less points coz Joe is getting them.
I would love to try and do the maths for this and see who will and wont be better off. With the current system as it is i don't think it is possible to work out accurately how much rake a cash player pays each month.
Anyone wanna have a go at the maths? you will need to do a few examples of a high VPIP and low VPIP over 100k hands. Show what they get under the current sysem and what they will get under the new system with £1 paid = 10 points. Go on you brave person you.
So in a purely hypothetical and simple example, with nice round numbers to make it easier- lets say in a hand six people are dealt in: - At the moment, for example, they'd get 10points each (60points in total) - In the alternative way (forgetting the blinds to keep it simpler!) in a £40 pot - Players 1 & 2 contribute zero = get no points - Player 3 contributed £4 = gets 6 points - Player 4 contributes £8 = gets 12 points - Players 5 & 6 contribute £14 each and get 21 points each Those who contribute more, get more (and vice versa) What do people think about this? Lets use player 5 and 6 as example. Player 5 is a pro who makes Priority +3 every month his/her 21 points are worth 5.6p per point. Player 6 is Joe he plays 4/5 times a month, his 21 points are only worth 1p each. Although sky have stated it is not their intention to reduce the amount they pay out, I think it will as a rec playing a few times a month will get more points that are worth less money and a pro player will get less points coz Joe is getting them. I would love to try and do the maths for this and see who will and wont be better off. With the current system as it is i don't think it is possible to work out accurately how much rake a cash player pays each month. Anyone wanna have a go at the maths? you will need to do a few examples of a high VPIP and low VPIP over 100k hands. Show what they get under the current sysem and what they will get under the new system with £1 paid = 10 points. Go on you brave person you. Posted by freechips1
Good post Free.
I am not sure how Sky will implement this if they do decide to changeover but there will be a grey area imo between points and actual cash paid out.
If we use your example it appears true that the actual cash amount paid out will decrease even though the points awarded will remain static.However, what will happen as your example illustrates, is that the more active a player is the more points he will earn so players who contribute more in rake will receive more in rakeback which is the fairest system.
With regards to Joe, our recreational player, i feel that he will have a bigger incentive to play more regularly if he realises that his rakeback rate per C4P increases as he hits each threshold.
I also agree that players starting new tables should be rewarded in some way and probably the suggestions of 2x HU and 1.5X for 3 handed is about right.
ps. Too long since i did any serious maths so i will pass on the comparison over 100k hands tx.
Lets give it a go.......(the flaw is not being able to work out % of what hands are raked so we will assume all hands are raked)
10nl 50k hands, current system.
You get 3 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 7500 points
10nl 50k hands, New system (assuming 10 points = £1 paid in rake)
Player (Y) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands. With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand. 7.5p per hand over 10k hands = £750 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 7500 points. ITS THE SAME.
Player (Z) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands. With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand. 7.5p per hand over 15k hands = £1125 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 11,250 points.
100nl 50k hands, current system
You get 18 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 45,000 points
100nl 50k hands, new system
Player (A) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5% (£0.50p raked per hand) he pays £0.25p per hand. 25p per hand over 10k hands = £2500 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 25,000 points. 20k less points.
Player (B) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5%. 0.25p per hand over 15k hands = £3750 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 37,500 points.
Player (C) plays 40% of hands so he plays 20k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5%. 0.25p per hand over 20k hands = £5000 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 50,000 points.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
(a)Pokerstars has changed to a weighted rake system and rightly so; Sky poker is a different story, its hasnt got a big enough player base and the software isnt quite good enough to allow rakeback pros to kill the games.
(b)I've only been here a day
(c)i'll get straight to the point, sky poker is better off keeping the rake system the way they have it now because it gives everyone a fair share regardless of playing style,
(d)to change the system will discourage alot of your player base as they will have to change their playing style in order to get the same as everyone else, poker is based alot on personality, i know some people that wouldnt raise on the button with J9s even if you held a gun to their head so saying punish the nits is the wrong attitude to take with a site this small.
(e)It should remain the same until the site grows to at least 50k people online at peak times.
Posted by aba10
I have cropped and labelled lines in your post to respond to as the quote feature here is so icky and adding coloured text etc can be very hard, but I want to respond to each of the things you have said, so that said...
(a) PS did not change to the weighted system exclusively because of the grinders, the setup of their VIP system means that the effects that it would have on there and on sky are different. It does however mean (and FC1 correctly pointed this out) that there will be no difference in the number of 'points' awarded, but because they will go to different people on differing vip (or priority levels w/e you wanna call it) there will be a difference in the total monetary value of what is given out. The point being that for long term ecosystem liquidity it is best for more to being going back to recreational players, however they play the least and get the least bonus multiplication so though they will now get more rakeback the amount more they get will be less than the amount the higher volume players will be losing out on (therefore obv the poker site wins).
Considering point (b) I'm not sure how you can quite so confidently discuss the long term liquidity of the sky games. If you were here to grind in January then you would have seen exactly what you mention, rakeback hunters of bottoms who just spent their days folding and not putting money in the pot, they are not good for the games and are the only people who benefit from dealt distribution.
(c) The main point to stress would be IMO that people are completely incorrect in accepting the sites taking such a large percentage of the pot as rake. Relative to the fact that it is online, on servers which don't need HR breaks or to be off ill or to be paid etc etc The margins on online poker compared to live poker where oftentimes the MTT rakes are similar is a farce. I'm not in anyway saying there are no overheads, because I expect the servers to stay up and running and things to work and people to be there during business hours to respond to issues etc but the rake levels have always been too high, whilst the games in the past have been soft enough that even marginal winners were not affected by it nowadays with decreasing win rates that inclusion in your expected value calculation where you * the figure by 95 really has an effect. With the huge volumes of hands that are played online the amount of max rake should be reduced, and again I think that it should be reduced more at the lower levels to benefit the recreational players. Take a 5p 10p game, and a £1 £2 game, both games expect a fair game to be provided by the service provider, yet those in the 1/2 game are playing for higher stakes and have more vested interest in the game being fair so I would have nothing against the rake paid being higher at 1/2 relative to at 5p/10p.
You say that it should be kept the way it is because that is 'fairer', that's not the right word to use. The whole point is that it is fairer that someone who constantly plays pots and pays into the pot which pays the rake should get more rakeback than someone who just sits there constantly clicking the left button. What next just have a game of 6 people all with auto fold on, as long as they sit there for 10 hours a day and fold every hand they can get paid some nice rakeback? Playing style is completely personal choice, the best players do not have a certain playing style and adjust to the games they are playing which is why the best players will always win but thinking that this is being implemented to specifically punish a swathe of players is incorrect, it just so happens that there is a large portion of players who are making use of the fact that the system is so unfairly set up as it is.
(d) Sky isn't here to pander to certain type of players. Sky is providing electronic tables on which people can play a card game on which they wager real money relative to the outcomes. The game must be fair, for that they charge a fee, the rake. Sky don't just charge some people the rake and not others, each users identity and stakes played and win/loss is irrelevant. For sky to be viable as a business the money in must be greater than or equal to the money out, obviously with sky being a biggie corporation they want the old profits and w/e that is business (there would be arguments for SP to be a loss leader if it brought more money into their other gambling ventures or people into sky packages etc but forget those scenarios). Considering that to the people most likely making the actual decisions above SP the idea of it not making money would mean that it shouldn't exist. so we cant just be hopeful and say no rake please we just want to play without paying for the service provided. Similarly if sky were only worried about the bottom line (lol I said bottom) of today then why not just up the rake or reduce the rakeback paid out etc, these would have the effect of reducing the longevity of the site. The old sheep shearing adage is very applicable here, do they want to have some nice roast lamb right now or months and months of nice wooly clothes? Obviously they want the revenue stream to continue and for that revenue stream to be as high as it can be whilst not affecting the longevity. Just because you know some guy who won't raise the button with top set what does that matter, you seem to think that sky are PUNISHING people when the whole point of rakeback is that it is a 'bonus' and sky are changing the methodology by which they distribute it in a way that BENEFITS a certain pool of players more than it did previously, this is good because it is that pool of players that are the ones that keep the games running.
(e) I hope I haven't wasted my time replying to you considering that quote (e) is just so farcical. From a site that does well to have 2k people online at any one time speculating that we'll just make it fairer when we manage to 25x our player base is pretty comical.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
Personally im not a fan change a lot of the table dynamics especially when it gets to say 11PM last day of month, althought i guess it brings all the 24 tabling nits out of there closets. i like the system as it is, this seems a bit too strange if your trying to work out how much u need to play for priority club etc i wont be able to give my opinion untill iev seen both though, dont think anyone can. could trial it for a month or two?
Posted by bolly580
Mr Bolly, you do realise that at a 6 man table, if there were no blinds there would be no reason to play, with antes posted by each player at the start of the hand combined with the blinds there is now an incentive in the pot to play for, every pot that is played post flop currently is raked and therefore a % of the pot disappears down a black hole, the amount is relative to the size of the pot up to a maximum amount. So we have factors giving us a reason to play and some that do the opposite, this is the 'table dynamics' as you reference. The 11pm end of the month stuff you reference has nothing to do with the structure of the game but everything to do with the structure of the rakeback scheme. I could make a complaint based on the fact that I like all my sessions to revolve around playing at 23:57 to 12:04 and I only play on the last day of a month, yet because you have to sit out to have the points come into your account for the month in which the session technically ends, all my games are broken at the times when I like to play..........
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
Lets give it a go.......(the flaw is not being able to work out % of what hands are raked so we will assume all hands are raked) 10nl 50k hands, current system. You get 3 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 7500 points 10nl 50k hands, New system (assuming 10 points = £1 paid in rake) Player (Y) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands. With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand. 7.5p per hand over 10k hands = £750 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 7500 points. ITS THE SAME. Player (Z) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands. With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand. 7.5p per hand over 15k hands = £1125 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 11,250 points. 100nl 50k hands, current system You get 18 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 45,000 points 100nl 50k hands, new system Player (A) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5% (£0.50p raked per hand) he pays £0.25p per hand. 25p per hand over 10k hands = £2500 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 25,000 points. 20k less points. Player (B) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5%. 0.25p per hand over 15k hands = £3750 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 37,500 points. Player (C) plays 40% of hands so he plays 20k hands. With average pot @£10 and rake @5%. 0.25p per hand over 20k hands = £5000 paid in rake. £1 = 10 points so he gets 50,000 points.
Posted by freechips1
FC1 you seem to be focusing completely on monetary values, first you should (as you have done) just consider the amount of points earnt, how those points are translated into a monetary value should then be looked at, but it is this aspect of it that affects the relative amounts of money paid out. There is no point sky making sure to pay out the same amount this month as they did last month when they are paying it out to the wrong people (and by wrong I mean to people who deserve it the least [though deserve is obviously a very objective word and probably not the right one to use but w/e this post is getting stupidly long as it is]; the right people to pay it out to are those that increase the longevity of the games, remembering that it is the games running that pay rake to pay skys' bills.
Recently I saw a promotion where HU games had a rake reduction. This equates to the players who are playing HU paying less rake each hand, but as HU is a very rake intensive game (because with only two people so many more flops are seen and much wider hand ranges used) sky are still quite literally 'raking' it in from a HU table. If you don't realise this, watch a HU match with two people with 100bb neither of whom reload, and then see how much money is in play after a certain time period. You will be shocked/disgusted imo. The rake on some sites for HU can be so bad that it forcibly makes you change your play style and increase your variance ie by trying to be exceptionally aggressive preflop, because preflop you are not raked and get 100% of the pot whereas post flop you get 95% of any pots you win. This forces the heads up match into a preflop bluff range game and variance war.
In Response to Re: Half-Price Rake on Heads-Up Tables!:
It's a brilliant promotion for the HU regs at £1/£2 and above, but I can count the number of players that I've seen playing HU on this site at those levels on my fingers, so what about the other 99.9% of Sky Poker players? Only lowering the rake at £1/£2 and above really defeats the point of the promotion to a certain extent IMO. I think it'd be a much better promotion if it covered every level of HU cash - you've said in the OP "If you haven't tried heads-up, it's a good time to play", so you're aiming this promotion at people who have never played HU before, as well as the handful of HU regs. Anyone who hasn't played HU before will know they'd be setting fire to money playing at £1/£2, and for that reason, probably wouldn't care how much rake there is because they're not going to play at that level anyway, so if you want people to try HU cash, it'd make sense to apply the same promotion to lower levels as well. Just my £0.02 (:
Posted by EvilPingu
Well said, considering also the disgusting HU etiquette, lobby skills, and general ineptitude of the mass of gift seekers who wait on the sky hu lobby all day refusing to play people who can tie their shoes this is utterly the wrong way to design a promotion.
Quick thoughts on promotion structure ideas:
Rake free for the first xyz hands [pros: more games start - cons: the games only last as long as the promotion for rake free lasts]
Rake free over special weekends or time periods [pros: more games start, games don't break when the free rake setup stops, people get into HU and wish to play it more even when there are no promotions running - cons: sky are outlaying money to have xyz headsup games running (lol it doesn't take up much server power) sky don't make a sick winrate off the HU games (both these cons are negative to sky but not to the players, these are 'promotions/bonuses' which would actually have an effect rather than just no rake at 1/2+ which literally targets no one as those games hardly ever run.]
Rake free up to a certain blind limit (the higher stakes someone is rolled to play for the less of an effect a small reduction in rake is going to have, also remember that the total amount of rake paid is capped so therefore once you get to silly stakes the rake is actually completely immaterial). Take for example a 1p2p headsup game with (ima make up the numbers here just for examples sake I can't be bothered to look anything up) with a 5% rake up to max £1 obv that game will run 3 hands and there will be no money left on the table, yet the same rake structure even with a higher cap eg 5trillion/38 gajillion blinds with a 5% £10 cap. If you can afford to sit in for a 38 gajillion big blind game then you don't have worries that include where did that £10 go, however the £1 cap at the 1/2p game is a % of the players bankrolls! It should all be relative, and as I referenced at the start those playing £5/10 or w/e should be paying alot more relative to someone playing ridiculously low stakes. The low stakes should be an avenue into the higher stakes for players, so starting a promotion at 1/2+ and above is joke dumb. [pros- the lower stakes would surge in popularity for HU (remember this discussion is related to just the HU games there are all sorts of similar issues in the 6 max and ring games and they require even more finesse to provide solutions better to everyone as there are more people at dem tables), more people would start seeing HU as a viable regular format of poker (which at the higher stakes regularly getting a game is exceptionally hard because the edges have reduced so much with skill levels increasing and therefore people don't get such easy wins and they are reticent to play as much since the swongs headsup can be so severe) - cons: sky don't get rake from the tiny hu games etc]
As you can see in all instances there are some people who benefit some people who lose out, if sky lose out over a certain threshold then it is not viable economically for them to continue to offer the service. Some people seem to think that they deserve sky paying them x a month because they have got used to that, and all they care about is themselves so why not spew forth selfish and unhelpful opinions.
In Response to Re: Half-Price Rake on Heads-Up Tables!:
well, i think it's great and very much appreciated given how high hu rake is on Sky, so thank you but i also agree if this was stretched to lower limits to increase hu popularity i can't see how that's a bad thing as heads up is by far the most fun form of no limit poker as it's much more action packed than 6max+
Posted by zing
As you can see a regular hu 'sitter' (he hunts dem bums pretty hard but at least he occasionally gives action to players who i'm sure he considers are better than him/ he does actually sit in 6 max games and doesn't have such ridic disgusting etiquette deficiencies (this should be taken as compliment zinagthon)) likes the idea of 1/2+ rake being reduced but in all likelihood it probably didn't give him a sudden surge of people sitting with him hu (as you can see he also references just how ridic high (and it is ridic) sky hu rake is). This player has accepted that the promotion benefits him whilst also acknowledging that he isn't the type of player sky should be aiming a bonus at. Sky should make sure to listen to players who give good/targeted/honest and unselfish feedback imo.
That's a quick version of my thoughts. :-) Sorry for the ridic length I can't help it.
For those whose eyes are hurting and they want to look at something and feel better -
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : I'd post bewbs but i'd get in trouble. And what is it, close to zero chance that you read it all? Posted by beaneh
jeez ur are good at readling people innit.. no wonders u is good at the pokerz!
fear not! my secretary Dohhhhhh is about to read it all and translate accordingly
Comments
That is true but I still don't think it's a particularly valid point. I know this will probably make me slightly worse off (and I basically ignore my C4P anyway as it's so little) but I've definitely been swayed by some of the clearly well thought out responses on here, and ultimately anything that improves the site/brings more traffic and 'fresh blood' to the site HAS to be a good thing and is clearly far more important than regs (loose or tight) getting C4P.
fair ?
u pay x amount of rake to get x amount of points. this would be a fairer system
emample
tourney u pay £11 entry £1 is the rake u get 10 points 4 this i think. cash should be the same u pay a total £1 rake get 10 points. but ive played hu cash table say we both start with £4 no reloads and i stack him/her after 10-20mins and cause of the rake taking from pots throughout the session i end up with say £6. so £2 taken in rake and u only receive 2-3 points max. thats y i think it would be fairer if i was like above any 1 else agree
i like the system as it is, this seems a bit too strange if your trying to work out how much u need to play for priority club etc
i wont be able to give my opinion untill iev seen both though, dont think anyone can. could trial it for a month or two?
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
- At the moment, for example, they'd get 10points each (60points in total)
- In the alternative way (forgetting the blinds to keep it simpler!) in a £40 pot
- Players 1 & 2 contribute zero = get no points
- Player 3 contributed £4 = gets 6 points
- Player 4 contributes £8 = gets 12 points
- Players 5 & 6 contribute £14 each and get 21 points each
Those who contribute more, get more (and vice versa)
What do people think about this?
Lets use player 5 and 6 as example.
Player 5 is a pro who makes Priority +3 every month his/her 21 points are worth 5.6p per point.
Player 6 is Joe he plays 4/5 times a month, his 21 points are only worth 1p each.
Although sky have stated it is not their intention to reduce the amount they pay out, I think it will as a rec playing a few times a month will get more points that are worth less money and a pro player will get less points coz Joe is getting them.
I would love to try and do the maths for this and see who will and wont be better off. With the current system as it is i don't think it is possible to work out accurately how much rake a cash player pays each month.
Anyone wanna have a go at the maths? you will need to do a few examples of a high VPIP and low VPIP over 100k hands. Show what they get under the current sysem and what they will get under the new system with £1 paid = 10 points. Go on you brave person you.
10nl 50k hands, current system.
You get 3 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 7500 points
10nl 50k hands, New system (assuming 10 points = £1 paid in rake)
Player (Y) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands.
With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand.
7.5p per hand over 10k hands = £750 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 7500 points. ITS THE SAME.
Player (Z) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands.
With average pot @£2 and rake @7.5% (0.15p per pot) he pays 0.075p per hand.
7.5p per hand over 15k hands = £1125 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 11,250 points.
100nl 50k hands, current system
You get 18 points for 20 raked hands so, 50k hands = 45,000 points
100nl 50k hands, new system
Player (A) plays 20% of hands so he plays 10k hands.
With average pot @£10 and rake @5% (£0.50p raked per hand) he pays £0.25p per hand.
25p per hand over 10k hands = £2500 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 25,000 points. 20k less points.
Player (B) plays 30% of hands so he plays 15k hands.
With average pot @£10 and rake @5%.
0.25p per hand over 15k hands = £3750 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 37,500 points.
Player (C) plays 40% of hands so he plays 20k hands.
With average pot @£10 and rake @5%.
0.25p per hand over 20k hands = £5000 paid in rake.
£1 = 10 points so he gets 50,000 points.
I don't care what you change it to, it has to be changed before the rest of us cotton on!
good try tho
I would imagine if a popup had blocked you posting that it would have been like a tonne of TNT going off.
Would have been fun to see on twitter though.
fear not! my secretary Dohhhhhh is about to read it all and translate accordingly
P.S I like cute kittens