You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

super roller

2

Comments

  • percival09percival09 Member Posts: 3,804
    edited June 2012
    Agh ok, because you're so ignorant with your opinion you must be correct, is that the way it works?

    Sure, you may be correct but you could at least be so in a more respectful and well mannered way
  • gixxerk4gixxerk4 Member Posts: 222
    edited June 2012
    Great structure good starting stack great numbers so a huge prizepool for a reasonable buyin.
    Personally I think 8 hours to win 8 grand is well worth it I regularly play live and we start at 8 and most times it doesnt finish until about 4am (with 100 ish runners) so about the same as last nights so guess that last nights game was about as close as you could get to playing live "online" well done sky a real poker game
    Now if only I hadnt run kings into aces ;-)
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    Agh ok, because you're so ignorant with your opinion you must be correct, is that the way it works? Sure, you may be correct but you could at least be so in a more respectful and well mannered way
    Posted by percival09


    Firstly you probably mean to say i'm arrogant not ignorant, and generally the way it works is ignorant people aren't correct no.

    At no point in this thread has there been anything other than random speculation as to what is 'good', no one explains from what perspective  it is 'good'. Nor has anyone who has speculated given any kind of reasoning for why their idea would be an improvement.


    If we remember I did a very long post a while back explaining why the structures on sky were so poor, how they could be improved AND who each change would affect + how it would be considered by sky. I discussed multiple different starting stacks and how they should be structured (in terms of starting levels, level length etc), I didn't just say increase the starting stack by a random number, lower the starting blinds and THEREFORE STRUCTURE IS BETTER. As I explained last time with lots of highlighting and words the number of bbs a player has and how it changes when the blinds go up are what determins the 'quality' of the structure (when I say quality I refer to trying to get alot of play at all points in the tournament BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY more play at the end of the tournament where all the money is played for, trying to do this whilst also taking into account skys point of view re timings, start times, duration etc).


    The structures since my last long post have switched from the old 'double the blinds' where your no of bbs halves each time to structures where the increases are shallow and the no off bbs doesn't change too extremely at any point. The whole point of a tournment is the blinds increase and therefore force action, however if you just keep doing levels where the blinds increase by 1 so like  (5/10 6/12 7/14) the tournament would take forever and no one would ever have to play. Awarding the win to whoever was willing to fold the most.  When there are antes involved in a tournament then you can have shallower level changes because the action is forced more by the extra chips in the pot at the start of the hand. Considering that sky cant have antes whilst they still cant they should adapt their structures to allow for that.


    At the very least sky should remove a couple of the levels in the current structure. 

    For the 20k roller I guess that sky wanted to be able to say '10k' chips kinda thing like lots of live venues do, whereby the say promotional numbers rather than well thought out structure numbers.

    10k starting stack at 15/30 was way too low, especially with 15 min blinds.

    IMO given a 10k starting stack, 10 min blinds 25/50 first level would have been a very good structured tournament considering the no antes and given that 2-3 levels would be removed. Tbh you could start at 50/100 and have 15 min blinds if you wanted either would have been better. 

    You could have had a better structured tournament by having 10 min levels at the start 15 min levels later on etc etc.
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    and u have a clue because beaneh ? because u play higher level lol none of us have a clue i played poker for over 10 years but have no clue dnt be a tard n talk down to are opinions 
    Posted by IDONKCALLU

    Spelling is the writing of one or more words with letters anddiacritics.

    In linguisticsgrammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of clausesphrases, and words in any givennatural language

    Capitalisation  is writing a word with its first letter as a majuscule (upper-case letter) and the remaining letters in minuscules (lower-case letters). 

    FYI.....
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    and im not good at gramma so what your brilliant beaneh  take the mick all u like i have a brain and i am very bright in other areas instead of english 
    Posted by IDONKCALLU

    A
    i'm
    grammar
    you're
    .
    T
    you
    I
    I
    E
    .





  • YOUNG_GUNYOUNG_GUN Member Posts: 8,948
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    Ima be honest. none of you have a clue what you are talking about with regards to structures. Sky have managed to ruin the vegas sat structures then make this tourny such a long drawn out farce. once antes can be introduced the shallower structures work better. randomly increasing starting size and choosing random levels to start on doesn't = a good structure. obviously you could make it a 45 minute clock and everyone could just sit out......................
    Posted by beaneh
    haha <3 true let beaneh sort out structure + antes imo 
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner Member Posts: 3,863
    edited June 2012
    This thread has taken a bit of a nasty turn. Let's just it bring it back a bit, alright?

    Now beaneh, I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with the structure of the roller, nor do I doubt that there were various alternative structures which would also have not been too bad. Clearly the roller had a very loooong structure.

    IDONKCALLU, let's be a little less hasty in the use of words like "tard". Some people would not be happy to see that.

    Percival09, unlucky against EvilPingu. I did get the feeling that you might have been a little tilted but we've all done it. lol
  • percival09percival09 Member Posts: 3,804
    edited June 2012
    Nope, I meant ignorant. thanks for the reply, I'll read it next year




  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    This thread has taken a bit of a nasty turn. Let's just it bring it back a bit, alright? Now beaneh, I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with the structure of the roller, nor do I doubt that there were various alternative structures which would also have not been too bad. Clearly the roller had a very loooong structure. IDONKCALLU, let's be a little less hasty in the use of words like "tard". Some people would not be happy to see that. Percival09, unlucky against EvilPingu. I did get the feeling that you might have been a little tilted but we've all done it. lol
    Posted by BorinLoner

    What was wrong with the structure was randomly selecting stack size/blind levels/blind lengths. Too much play early not enough late as usual. 

    I just cant hear more people constantly saying make blinds longer, give more chips etc etc with no idea of the actual affect on the play of the tournament. 
  • MyZoMyZo Member Posts: 332
    edited June 2012

    I blame the government, it was a terrible idea to scrap Grammar Schools and replaced them with Comprehensives. I always knew something like this would happen. Sigh.
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012

    In Response to Re: super roller:
    Nope, I meant ignorant. thanks for the reply, I'll read it next year
    Posted by percival09



    Ignorance is a state of being uninformed.

    So you are saying because i'm so uninformed I think my opinion is right? 

    Or are you saying that your post is so dumb and my post schools you so easily that you just stubbornly posted a stupid post rather than taking on board what I said. 


    Fwiw you're initial insult/response w/e you want to call it would have worked much much better if you had used arrogance/hubris rather than ignorance. (
    Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an over estimation of one's own competence or capabilities.) 

    You're own expert ignorance has helped you show up that I don't put forward my opinion ignorantly because it is well thought out and reasoned and it just so happens that I have alot more extensive experience on the subject than you do.



    But w/e I could just rise to your level and do what you did and say TOO LONG DIDN'T READ LOL....

  • BorinLonerBorinLoner Member Posts: 3,863
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    In Response to Re: super roller : What was wrong with the structure was randomly selecting stack size/blind levels/blind lengths. Too much play early not enough late as usual.  I just cant hear more people constantly saying make blinds longer, give more chips etc etc with no idea of the actual affect on the play of the tournament. 
    Posted by beaneh
    There was a fair amount of play late on, really. I can't remember exactly what the average was when it hit the final table but it was reasonably deep. I'm sure it was at least 25BB average, though it could have been higher. The point is that there was plenty of play. The only problem was that nobody went bust for a long while at that point.

    Anyway, I don't think there is any ideal tournament struture. There'll always be someone that's not happy.
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    In Response to Re: super roller : There was a fair amount of play late on, really. I can't remember exactly what the average was when it hit the final table but it was reasonably deep. I'm sure it was at least 25BB average, though it could have been higher. The point is that there was plenty of play. The only problem was that nobody went bust for a long while at that point. Anyway, I don't think there is any ideal tournament struture. There'll always be someone that's not happy.
    Posted by BorinLoner

    Is there alot of play with 25 bbs and no antes lol? I didn't realise.

    There was no need to be 300bb deep at the start.

    edit also the nature of no antes means that people don't have to play so people will just fold down regardless.
  • percival09percival09 Member Posts: 3,804
    edited June 2012
    'Fwiw, you're initial/response'

    brilliant grammar from the grammar expert
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner Member Posts: 3,863
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    In Response to Re: super roller : Is there alot of play with 25 bbs and no antes lol? I didn't realise. There was no need to be 300bb deep at the start.
    Posted by beaneh
    In tournament play, on a final table? Yeah, that's alot of play. As I say, it could have been more anyway. I was a very tired chap at that point.

    There wasn't any need to be 300BB deep at the start but there's no need to be 300BB deep at the start of the WSOP main event either. That's just the way people want it. The majority seemed to like the structure of this particular tournament and in the face of that, it's difficult to say that it was wrong.
  • noodles272noodles272 Member Posts: 1
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    In Response to Re: super roller : A i'm grammar you're . T you I I E .
    Posted by beaneh
    *I'm

    In English, the subjective form of the singular first-person pronoun, "I", is capitalized, along with all its contractions such as I'll and I'm.
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    'Fwiw, you're initial/response' brilliant grammar from the grammar expert
    Posted by percival09

    congrats on spotting a mistake in >1k words.


    feel free to attempt a response that makes you look better than a child having a tantrum because he doesn't get his own way.
  • MyZoMyZo Member Posts: 332
    edited June 2012

    Surprisingly, these grammar responses are quite comprehensive.
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    In Response to Re: super roller : In tournament play, on a final table? Yeah, that's alot of play. As I say, it could have been more anyway. I was a very tired chap at that point. There wasn't any need to be 300BB deep at the start but there's no need to be 300BB deep at the start of the WSOP main event either. That's just the way people want it. The majority seemed to like the structure of this particular tournament and in the face of that, it's difficult to say that it was wrong.
    Posted by BorinLoner


    The wsop has super deep structures with shallow increases AND antes so the large number of chips in play are accounted for by an increase in the speed with which people should play, without antes that never happens.

    it would be much better to start shallower in the first level but then have the longer blinds, ie like 10k stack 50/100 15 min blinds. that would have a tonne of 'play'.


    for all those grammar nits I know that mine is bad and yet the standard of some of the posts on this forum blows my mind.

  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited June 2012
    In Response to Re: super roller:
    I believe judging people is wrong, and in our society it's becoming more and more common. I think it's at its worst when certain people feel the need to try and make somebody else feel bad about something, which they know nothing about and may be the result of something you are completely unaware about. I learnt a lesson a while back, belittling somebody is the result of the person involved not feeling good about themselves. So in situations such as this, it's clear that certain people have problems they need to address instead of trying to make other people feel ****, in order to make themselves feel better, because it really doesn't work.
    Posted by percival09

    TOO LONG DIDN'T READ LOL MIGHT READ NEXT YEAR ZOMG IM NO APOSTROPHE BEING CHILDISH ZOMG REALLY. CHILDISH REALLY ZOMG I CANT ARGUE IMA TALK GARBAGE ZOMG LOLZ


    Apologies for writing a long post explaining exactly my position on the matter, congrats on being childish and churlish enough to not read it and just be pointless. wp gg nh etc
Sign In or Register to comment.