In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
Oh I really hope you typed that into a text editor and then cut and pasted it here. 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.
Posted by Machka
You sir are a horrible person. You know full well that on more than one occasion this PLUCKING software (see what I did there I referenced the name of the software to describe it ) messes you about and logs you out when you spend a few mins logged in and doing nothing, then when you click post it goes LOL YOU'RE NOT LOGGED IN DELETEAMENTS
and I run around going OMG DID THAT REALLY JUST HAPPEN I HATE LIFE
So nowadays once the post starts getting stupid long notepad has to be used, I went to spell check it but having already corrected quite a few in the posts I quoted I just gave up and hoped that I didn't misspell too many things myself. But tbf in a post that long I think I should be given quite a lot of leeway!
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : 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 P.S I like cute kittens
Posted by GREGHOGG
I has dem reads bruv, that's how I took you out of SPT LUTON. MWAHAQHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAAAAAAAAA
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. Posted by beaneh
i only give action occasionally because it's simply not worth it logically, same goes with starting tables, you have to worry more about the rake you're losing over the opponent you're playing such is the obscenity. (i had an example before this weekend where i played around 150 hands at 2/4 and was raked around 100£ and i probs got like 50 c4p for that lol)
hopefully they do introduce a scheme to help table starters and in turn correct the hu rake issue in general so i don't need a 10bb/100 edge on someone to profitably play them, inevitably leading to more games running because people feel they can actually win some monies.
props for writing a massive essay which i only kinda read cause i saw my name and it's late, the problem is not enough people speak up on sky about the major issues so things never get changed for the better and general health of the games.
Half-Price Rake on Heads-Up Tables!: 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 - http://tinyurl.com/shutupbeanehfewl Posted by beaneh
You are my Sky forum hero so stfu and read
You only play 6max yeh? You've mentioned the redic rake and low edges HU, so if you were a HU player would you not have quite a few people you'd avoid as it's simply -ev to play them??
the argument on here seems to be about being 'fairer' and sky increasing 'liquidity'
right so ok it is a fairer system no denying it
but regs ARE going to be worse off, say NL50 for example where i frequent, the player pool is made up of say 20 Regs and 100 recreational players (on a weekly basis - i.e. recreational may only play once a week) now whats gonna happen is regs' rakeback is gonna decrease by 20% to boost each of the recreational players rakeback/C4P by 4-5%, but it IS the regs that generate rake, a 'reg' is much more efficient at turning a £100 'deposit' into as much rake as possible as they play over and over again (even tho they're prob accumulating at the time), a reg will rake £100 and make £150, fish on the other hand will rake £10 and lose £100, leave then maybe come back next month. Reg's deposit to rake conversion ratio is much better, and sky's income is really only thru rake.
and as for a 'liquidity', or bettering/increasing it
theres 2 types on players, Type 'A' the 'Reg' and Type 'B' the recreational player/fish, and each have different needs, and for good 'liquidity' - a poker site business that is profitable/growing u need plenty of regs and a steady supply of recreational players
Type 'A' is the reg, and his needs are fairly basic
*steady supply of Type 'B' players
*motivational bonuses (to drive rake generation) - such as C4P, the greater the incentive the more u are likely to play
Type 'B' is the fish, and they need
*Value for money
*An enjoyable poker experience
so lets break it down....
Value for Money: this is why bounty hunters/timed tournaments are so popular with recreational players, its very easy to make some sort of return on ur initial outlay whilst they enjoy their hobby -
to increase value for money for recreational players:
* a better whay to do it would b to decrease the rake at the micros
* educate the recreational player pool on BRM so that they get more play from the their £100 at NL10 than lol-playing NL100 for 30 mins (this is probs why all sky poker sites have online schools, the educate their market because ultimately better players play more, and generate more rake)
*insert other suggestions here i cant think of
An enjoyable poker experience - the worlds biggest poker room isnt 'stars, its 'zynga' poker (lol), why? cos its actually fun, theres trophies for getting royal flushes n sh**, u can use ur points/money to buy cigars+virtual booze lol, sounds bonkers to see but the fish fookin love it, sky are better off implementing some sort of 'Video Game' dynamic to sky to increase the supply and enjoyment of recreational players
and as for attracting new markets of recreational players the number 1 deterrent for online poker as far as a recreational player or even non-player/casual observer is concerned to widely believed conspiracy that online poker is rigg*d, so suppose thatd what u should combat -Video poker tables mite b a good idea
now the argument that WRC (weight contributed rake) will increase liquidity is flawed imo, dont really see how it will when when type 'B' players arent even probs aware of rake/how it works and the benefit from it will be minimal - as they have greatly reduced C4P multipliers....is it imo a 'money grab' from online poker sites as online poker has had its boom and has probably reached saturation point, but of course business' need to constantly grow (in profit monetary terms) so this is really a capital/profit retainer masquerading as a fairer system - which will apparently lead to better games....i dont believe it
i hope to be proved wrong, i mean im all for it if 'liquidity' does somehow magically improve, but in order for that to happen sky would have to used retained profits from saved C4P to invest them into attracting new markets/more recreational players....which only they can really answer
so in summary it wouldnt be a welcome change for me and im selfish and it would effect my C4P rakeback and i dont think it will lead to better games - other things need to happen for that
I'm not clued up on all the nitty gritty stats and %'s of rakeback and technical stuff, I jusy stay in my own bubble, play what I want when I want and how I want. I make over 10k C4P every month and a nice profit to go with it. What I do know though is it's the regular grinders that pay the most rake, thats a given. If Sky do make changes and the regs are worse off, they will look elsewhere for better rakeback deals. FACT. There are plenty of other sites out there that will give very good rakeback.
Like I said I don't know who this will benefit if it does happen, only time will tell, but it is a waste of time helping out occasional players that probably don't even know they get C4P rather than making sure the high volume players are happy.
Machka IT RUDDY HAPPENED AGAIN lol http://i43.tinypic.com/hx6c77.jpg And some of the talk about stuff hasn't fully affected Sky. Still they are things to be considered because they will eventually happen here. Hope this post makes sense gonna click submit before the message comes up again! Posted by beaneh
Not laughng, honest.
I'm sure I figured this was only a Firefox issue, unless it's changed since browser updates.
I also think I remember I figured some way to recover the text that had been written, if I find the post I'll let you know.
Therefore a small amount of reduction in their cash 4 points payment shouldn't affect them that much.
If some of the sites breakeven/losing grinders (of which there are many) who only play for cash for points decide that the changes are so bad for them then they have to move sites then it will a) make the games better for the regs that stay...b) make the games more fun for the recreational players who really must hate seeing them folding for hours then suddenly get in their stack with AA/sets and c) if the games do get less reg filled/softer than the word will very quickly get out and some new regs will appear OR current regs will take advantage of this and increase their grind time
Regs should always be winning players. Therefore a small amount of reduction in their cash 4 points payment shouldn't affect them that much. If some of the sites breakeven/losing grinders (of which there are many) who only play for cash for points decide that the changes are so bad for them then they have to move sites then it will a) make the games better for the regs that stay...b) make the games more fun for the recreational players who really must hate seeing them folding for hours then suddenly get in their stack with AA/sets and c) if the games do get less reg filled/softer than the word will very quickly get out and some new regs will appear OR current regs will take advantage of this and increase their grind time Posted by scotty77
True. I'm not really taking sides either way on this, but at our cash level especially (50nl) this is the most beneficial level for rakeback and can't be ignored IMO. Getting 6 - 7 buy ins given to you every month can't be sniffed at.
I don't even know where I would fit into this. I'm not loose I know that, but I wouldn't say I'm a nit (even though I said that in a different reply). I guess I would be on the tighter side of average and this won't make much of a difference to me. I'm just putting across a different line of thinking. Being devils advocate I suppose.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
there is a wider argument here, but fwiw... i'm with AJS on this one the argument on here seems to be about being 'fairer' and sky increasing 'liquidity' right so ok it is a fairer system no denying it but regs ARE going to be worse off, say NL50 for example where i frequent, the player pool is made up of say 20 Regs and 100 recreational players (on a weekly basis - i.e. recreational may only play once a week) now whats gonna happen is regs' rakeback is gonna decrease by 20% to boost each of the recreational players rakeback/C4P by 4-5%, but it IS the regs that generate rake, a 'reg' is much more efficient at turning a £100 'deposit' into as much rake as possible as they play over and over again (even tho they're prob accumulating at the time), a reg will rake £100 and make £150, fish on the other hand will rake £10 and lose £100, leave then maybe come back next month. Reg's deposit to rake conversion ratio is much better, and sky's income is really only thru rake. and as for a 'liquidity', or bettering/increasing it theres 2 types on players, Type 'A' the 'Reg' and Type 'B' the recreational player/fish, and each have different needs, and for good 'liquidity' - a poker site business that is profitable/growing u need plenty of regs and a steady supply of recreational players Type 'A' is the reg, and his needs are fairly basic *steady supply of Type 'B' players *motivational bonuses (to drive rake generation) - such as C4P, the greater the incentive the more u are likely to play Type 'B' is the fish, and they need *Value for money *An enjoyable poker experience so lets break it down.... Value for Money: this is why bounty hunters/timed tournaments are so popular with recreational players, its very easy to make some sort of return on ur initial outlay whilst they enjoy their hobby - to increase value for money for recreational players: * a better whay to do it would b to decrease the rake at the micros * educate the recreational player pool on BRM so that they get more play from the their £100 at NL10 than lol-playing NL100 for 30 mins (this is probs why all sky poker sites have online schools, the educate their market because ultimately better players play more, and generate more rake) * insert other suggestions here i cant think of An enjoyable poker experience - the worlds biggest poker room isnt 'stars, its 'zynga' poker (lol), why? cos its actually fun, theres trophies for getting royal flushes n sh**, u can use ur points/money to buy cigars+virtual booze lol, sounds bonkers to see but the fish fookin love it, sky are better off implementing some sort of 'Video Game' dynamic to sky to increase the supply and enjoyment of recreational players and as for attracting new markets of recreational players the number 1 deterrent for online poker as far as a recreational player or even non-player/casual observer is concerned to widely believed conspiracy that online poker is rigg*d, so suppose thatd what u should combat -Video poker tables mite b a good idea now the argument that WRC (weight contributed rake) will increase liquidity is flawed imo, dont really see how it will when when type 'B' players arent even probs aware of rake/how it works and the benefit from it will be minimal - as they have greatly reduced C4P multipliers....is it imo a 'money grab' from online poker sites as online poker has had its boom and has probably reached saturation point, but of course business' need to constantly grow (in profit monetary terms) so this is really a capital/profit retainer masquerading as a fairer system - which will apparently lead to better games....i dont believe it i hope to be proved wrong, i mean im all for it if 'liquidity' does somehow magically improve, but in order for that to happen sky would have to used retained profits from saved C4P to invest them into attracting new markets/more recreational players....which only they can really answer so in summary it wouldnt be a welcome change for me and im selfish and it would effect my C4P rakeback and i dont think it will lead to better games - other things need to happen for that [x] cue doomswitch on a similar note that makes good reading... Phil Galfond on changes that should b made online poker http://www.bestpokerrooms.com/news/phil-galfond-changes-need-to-be-made-to-online-poker/
Posted by sikas
Sikas you seem to be saying that regs are the most important players to be catering for, and that you are against the change because it isn't beneficial to you and because you don't agree with the idea of the change increasing/benefiting liquitidy. You seem to be missing the point with regards to over what time frame we are looking. Over the short term 'liquidity' ie the sum total of money sloshing about in the sky poker market will most likely reduce, however taking a long term view it is expected that there will be 'some liquidity' for longer. Any change that helps reduce the speed with which the liquidity of the sites different games deteriorates by is good.
I do not disagree that regs will be worse off (in a closed system if one person is going to benefit another must lose out) however if next week there are no games then are the regs not even worse off then? It's give and take. You seem to be misunderstanding the relationship between regs being the best rake generators for sky and the recreational players being the best for bringing money into the system to increase liquidity. As we can see just by looking at the HU lobby and by watching six max games, regs are unwilling to play other regs regularly and need a really 'fishy' reason for them to join a game. For a game to generat rake there needs to be people playing ldo and it is the those people that bring money into the system that sky MUST focus on. Without them there are no games and without games there is no rake.
It is very easy to be cynical of the motives for sky to implement this change, and say they are just trying to take more but there is no point in them taking a larger slice of a non existent pie. It is pretty incredible to suggest that sky should look to zynga to improve itself 'because zynga has so many people playing' considering that zynga removed the major barrier for most people ie MONEY. Unsurprisingly alot more people are willing to play when they don't have to risk anything!
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
I'm not clued up on all the nitty gritty stats and %'s of rakeback and technical stuff, I jusy stay in my own bubble, play what I want when I want and how I want. I make over 10k C4P every month and a nice profit to go with it. What I do know though is it's the regular grinders that pay the most rake, thats a given. If Sky do make changes and the regs are worse off, they will look elsewhere for better rakeback deals. FACT. There are plenty of other sites out there that will give very good rakeback. Like I said I don't know who this will benefit if it does happen, only time will tell, but it is a waste of time helping out occasional players that probably don't even know they get C4P rather than making sure the high volume players are happy.
Posted by FlashFlush
I really don't agree with this. As I have said above the long term health of the games relies on the money coming not from there being people who want to sit and fold all day. Referencing the moronic sites that give large proportions of rakeback, unsurprisingly these sites are also the ones that decided to release multiple affiliates to increase the liquidity of their network as a whole. However because they were inept and couldn't forsee the longterm implications of this strategy (and or they wanted immediate profits); you had 1 overall network, with 20 affilliates, these affiliates all offered rakeback percentages that the other networks couldn't match (because they were stupidly high) and so obviously people who were looking for 'easy money' flocked to their networks, and set up multiple accounts via the different affiliates. All these players then just sat in the games as often as possible playing as little as possible in an attempt to have as low a loss rate as possible, which they could then counter act by getting ridic amounts of rakeback in return. Each affilliate made money in proportionate terms to the amount of rake people put through the network so the sites didn't want to improve the network just their bottom line. This created a cycle of aggressive marketing strategies with the affiliates canaballising the players from other affililates on the same network. The network in question has now had to attempt to ban direct rakeback schemes, and is essentially slowly but surely going under.
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
Regs should always be winning players. Therefore a small amount of reduction in their cash 4 points payment shouldn't affect them that much. If some of the sites breakeven/losing grinders (of which there are many) who only play for cash for points decide that the changes are so bad for them then they have to move sites then it will a) make the games better for the regs that stay...b) make the games more fun for the recreational players who really must hate seeing them folding for hours then suddenly get in their stack with AA/sets and c) if the games do get less reg filled/softer than the word will very quickly get out and some new regs will appear OR current regs will take advantage of this and increase their grind time
Posted by scotty77
+1
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points:
In Response to Re: Discussion - Weighted Contribution Poker Points : Not laughng, honest. I'm sure I figured this was only a Firefox issue, unless it's changed since browser updates. I also think I remember I figured some way to recover the text that had been written, if I find the post I'll let you know.
Posted by Machka
I've experienced the problem in both FF and Chrome, yet found no way to get around it and retrieve what is already entered in the forum window. Try and remember please !!!
My point though Beaneh is do the "rec" players really care that much about rakeback? Surely it's the grinders that play for the rakeback more. The rec players would be more interested in new offers/promotions on the site I.E forum comps, or 500 millionth hand etc, rather than whether their £50 rakeback is increased to £60 every month, while the regs could see their rake go from £400 to £300 for example.
I may be way off the mark, but just throwing it out there. **Insert kitten here**
I doubt a lot of recreational players know what rake is never mind rakeback.
What I would like to see is two VIP clubs.
1) for high volume grinders - basically a good rakeback deal.
2) people who spend a lot - a club not advertsied (as its basically a losing players club.) But where say somebody loses e.g. 5k they get a decent gift sent through post like a ipad. Or if they lose £500 they get a bottle of champagne etc etc
btw I would rather play on a site with no rakeback at all and be super soft.
I doubt a lot of recreational players know what rake is never mind rakeback. What I would like to see is two VIP clubs. 1) for high volume grinders - basically a good rakeback deal. 2) people who spend a lot - a club not advertsied (as its basically a losing players club.) But where say somebody loses e.g. 5k they get a decent gift sent through post like a ipad. Or if they lose £500 they get a bottle of champagne etc etc btw I would rather play on a site with no rakeback at all and be super soft. Posted by ajs4385
Comments
hopefully they do introduce a scheme to help table starters and in turn correct the hu rake issue in general so i don't need a 10bb/100 edge on someone to profitably play them, inevitably leading to more games running because people feel they can actually win some monies.
props for writing a massive essay which i only kinda read cause i saw my name and it's late, the problem is not enough people speak up on sky about the major issues so things never get changed for the better and general health of the games.
now you just gotta get them to listen.
You are my Sky forum hero so stfu and read
You only play 6max yeh? You've mentioned the redic rake and low edges HU, so if you were a HU player would you not have quite a few people you'd avoid as it's simply -ev to play them??
If weighted contribution does come in, I'd love to see another rake race.
I'm sure I figured this was only a Firefox issue, unless it's changed since browser updates.
I also think I remember I figured some way to recover the text that had been written, if I find the post I'll let you know.
fo with ur cute kittens in sinks
seriously tilting
p.s i actually read your last post
I doubt a lot of recreational players know what rake is never mind rakeback.
What I would like to see is two VIP clubs.
1) for high volume grinders - basically a good rakeback deal.
2) people who spend a lot - a club not advertsied (as its basically a losing players club.) But where say somebody loses e.g. 5k they get a decent gift sent through post like a ipad. Or if they lose £500 they get a bottle of champagne etc etc
btw I would rather play on a site with no rakeback at all and be super soft.